Mr. Chairman, it is easy for me to be the first speaker this morning, because fortunately I do not have to reply to anything which any hon. member of the Opposition parties had to say.

To begin with I should like to address a word of gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and in the same breath, to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, too, for the visit they paid not only to my constituency, but also to other constituencies, on 28 and 29 April this year, in order to make an evaluation of the damage which had been caused in those areas by extraordinarily heavy rains over the past year. It was essential for the two hon. Ministers themselves to see what damage had been caused. According to estimates, damage caused by water in my constituency alone amounts to approximately R10 or R12 million. I think that the damage caused in other constituencies, is even greater than that caused in mine. I can assure the hon. the Minister that there is great appreciation for the encouraging words he addressed to the farmers during his visit. The mere fact that he and the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs did visit those areas, contributed a great deal towards giving our agriculturalists a feeling of comfort.

It so happens that the matter I want to raise also concerns water. I should like to exchange a few words with the hon. the Minister on the position of the Vaalhartz Irrigation Scheme. This irrigation scheme is not situated entirely in my constituency, but it is impossible to discuss the situation there if only part of this scheme is taken into consideration. The Vaalhartz Irrigation scheme was certainly one of the most important irrigation schemes in South Africa. This scheme was started as far back as 1933 and it is interesting to note that it was started in 1933 for the very reason of affording Whites employment opportunities at that time. The Department of Water Affairs, which was known as the Department of Irrigation at the time, constructed the scheme with the aid of Whites, who received a salary of 53 cents per day in those days. The costs involved in the scheme and the proposed drainage system, as envisaged by the Department of Water Affairs, will amount to total capital expenditure of approximately R26 million. The costs of the drainage works which are to be constructed, will amount to R8 million alone. This shows us that here we are dealing with one of the less expensive schemes in South Africa. It will be possible to irrigate 37 000 ha by means of this scheme. Of those 37 000 ha, 5 000 ha are situated in the Bantu homelands in the Taung area. The maintenance costs will amount to approximately R500 000 per year if the drainage works are constructed as the Department of Water Affairs has proposed. This will mean that, if the irrigation farmers in that area will have to carry the additional costs involved in the reclamation of the land—one might say—their rates, which is at present R15 per ha will have to be pushed up to R25 per ha.

There is a portion of the land, viz. the portion situated in the Bantu homeland as well as smaller portions which are irrigated, which is not subject to rates. The increased rates will therefore apply only to land cultivated by Whites and situated within the scheme. I do not want to say for a single moment that it is not essential for the Department of Water Affairs to construct the drainage works concerned. Indeed, I think it is absolutely essential that the work be done. The estimated costs involved are R8 million. If construction commences in the course of this financial year, the 125 km of drainage canal which is proposed will be completed by the end of 1983.

Where the Minister of Agriculture and his department come into this, is to my mind chiefly with regard to the question as to whether it is justified that we spend so much money on the drainage canals in the Vaalhartz irrigation scheme at this stage. At the moment the Vaalhartz irrigation scheme provides R20 million per year in gross income to the agricultural sector. This in itself is an impressive amount. However, I am of the opinion that it will not benefit us in any way if we construct these drainage canals and are unable to reclaim the land or the potential of the land which has been lost because of the mineralization of the land in the area, a process which has been in progress over the past number of years. It appears from the report of the Department of Water Affairs that the farmers will be expected to pay increased rates of R10 per ha per annum, but as yet we are not able to ensure that it will be possible, technically speaking, to adopt or to deal with the crops cultivated in the area conserved in a way which will allow the farmers concerned to derive a higher income from such crops on the basis of the inevitable increased production costs resulting from these works. I am of the opinion, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, that we should give consideration to retaining this scheme as it is with the drainage canals proposed by the Department of Water Affairs and with further drainage works which will have to be constructed after 1983 if we want to retain the scheme. I believe, however, that there is only one way in which this can be done.

We shall have to consider, after the analogy of the system which we had and which is still being applied in certain areas, viz. the stock withdrawal scheme, introducing a water withdrawal scheme at the Vaalhartz irrigation scheme, subsequent to which we shall have to compensate the agriculturalist for having been unable to make use of the water for a certain number of years. In this way we can try to improve our soil by returning the necessary trace elements to the soil so that it may be irrigated without ill effect. I am afraid that the type of soil which is being irrigated in the Vaalhartz irrigation scheme is a strange type of soil at present. We all know that it is chiefly drift sand and drift soil which is being irrigated in the Hartz River Valley at the present time. That soil lacks the necessary trace elements which are essential for enduring continual irrigation action. In my opinion there is only one way in which this can be rectified, namely to withdraw the land concerned completely for a period of time in order to give it the opportunity to build up those trace elements once again.

At present the crops which take up the largest area of land there are ground-nuts in summer and wheat in winter. Of the total area of land irrigated in summer, 11 500 ha are used for the cultivation of ground-nuts, while 19 000 ha are used in winter for the cultivation of wheat. Therefore attention will have to be given to this matter. If other crops cannot be planted in order to utilize that soil, the soil will have to rest and the necessary steps will have to be taken to return trace elements to the soil so as to bring about a situation which, through the cultivation of the correct products, will justify the high costs in future. It is true that at first glance an amount of R20 million per annum, as a contribution by this scheme, does seem to be extremely high. However, it should be borne in mind that this is the gross income produced by the scheme. Proportionally, calculated on the basis of the capital investment in the scheme, this may be good, but it should also be borne in mind that the scheme was originally constructed at a cost of R7 million and that constant drainage work, the construction of a weir in the Vaal River, etc., as well as the amount of R8 million for the construction of further drainage canals over a distance of 125 km, bring the total costs at this stage to R26 million.

As I have said, I am of the opinion that this scheme should be retained, but adaptations will have to be made in order to ensure that the scheme retains its true potential and that its contribution to agricultural production is increased as well.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon. the Minister once again. As hon. members of this House know, a great deal of land has been purchased around the Bloemhof Dam—both in the Transvaal and the Free State—which does not fall under the Department of Water Affairs. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that—in my constituency alone—18 000 ha of that State-owned land is now being made available to new farmers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to identify myself with the gratitude expressed by the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke to the hon. the Minister as well as with the gratitude expressed by him to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs for the visit they had paid to the northern parts. We are grateful for the personal investigation they conducted into the heavy losses which farmers in those areas suffered as a result of floods and too much rain. The visits of both the hon. Ministers are very highly appreciated, by the farmers in particular. Farmers everywhere expressed their pleasure at the visits of the hon. the Ministers and also intimated that they realized that their affairs were in good hands.

Now, however, I should like to deal with something quite different. I should like to say a few words about abattoirs, with special reference to abattoirs in the non-controlled centres. At the time of the establishment of the Abattoir Commission in 1967 the commission took the planning and control of abattoirs upon itself. Due to various factors, more and more municipalities did not see their way clear to establishing new abattoirs. The factors which contributed towards this were chiefly the particularly high costs involved in the construction of abattoirs, as well as general increases in costs. A further factor was the low capital return. Municipalities were entitled to a net profit of 1% on their investment only. A further factor was the high requirements laid down in respect of hygiene at abattoirs. Consequently the Abattoir Commission was obliged in many cases to take over abattoirs and also accept responsibility for the establishment of new abattoirs, inter alia, at City Deep and Cato Ridge. The commission also had to take over the abattoirs in Durban, Pretoria, Benoni, Springs and Germiston. The municipalities of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Kimberley and Bloemfontein still control their own abattoirs.

It was necessary, however, to establish the Abattoir Corporation, and consequently this was done this year. The Corporation became necessary and after its establishment it started seeing to the operational and erection functions of abattoirs. The abattoirs are all situated in controlled areas. In the non-controlled areas, however, there are major problems relating to abattoirs. It will demand our serious attention in future to find a solution to our major problem in this regard. Three hundred and thirty-four abattoirs are operated by municipalities, of which six fall in the controlled areas. The six abattoirs within the controlled areas are under the control of the Abbattoir Corporation. The bottlenecks which we experienced occur throughout South Africa, from the smallest town to the largest city.

I should like to mention a few examples to hon. members. According to Die Burger of 21 February the mayor of Loxton said the following after the abattoir there had been closed down—

He went on to say the following—

Nobody will be prepared to provide a loan for the erection of such an uneconomic project.

Pietersburg, too, has to build a new abattoir, but the costs of doing so are so high that the slaughtering fee for cattle will increase from R2,30 to R20. The slaughtering fee for pigs will increase from R2,20 to R12. At Mafeking the situation arose that there was a threat to close the abattoir down, because it did not meet health requirements. The town council of Mafeking saw that the costs per unit of livestock would be extremely high, if they were to slaughter simply to provide for their own needs. Consequently they co-operated and conducted negotiations with the municipalities of Zeerust and Lichtenburg to erect a regional abattoir at Mafeking. Mafeking is situated within the cattle production area. If such a regional abattoir could have been erected, the cost per unit of livestock would have been between R8,80 and R9. This scheme did not succeed because of a lack of co-operation between the three municipalities. A similar example is Frankfort, which also tried to erect a regional abattoir for the surrounding towns in that area a few years ago. This project was also dropped because of a lack of co-operation.

The situation in which abattoirs in the rural areas find themselves throughout is similar to the examples I have mentioned. I doubt whether there are more than five abattoirs in South Africa, outside the controlled areas, which meet the present animal hygiene regulations. From these examples we may also draw the following conclusions, viz. that erection costs are extremely high and that municipalities do not see their way clear to meeting such costs. The erection of larger regional abattoirs on a voluntary basis could bring the unit cost down. In this sphere, however, a lack of co-operation between municipalities is being experienced. Unfortunately it seems to me as though it is the case throughout South Africa that no municipality wants to co-operate with another in the establishment of these important projects. The solution to this problem, in my opinion, is for regional abattoirs to be erected. Of the 334 abattoirs which are under municipal control, there are 73 which slaughter less than five units of livestock per week. At 198, between 5 and 50 units are slaughtered per week. I am not even talking about the 773 abattoirs, which are privately owned, which slaughter less than five units of livestock per week. There are 80 private abattoirs which slaughter between 5 and 50 units of livestock per week.

If a voluntary scheme cannot be effected between the municipalities, other plans will definitely have to be made. Therefore I should like to recommend the following strongly to the hon. the Minister. In the first place he should request the Abattoir Corporation and the Abattoir Commission to make a survey of abattoir requirements and to establish a blueprint for future planning, in collaboration with municipalities which fall outside controlled areas. This will immediately determine the extent of the need. It can determine priorities with regard to where it will be necessary to build first. Furthermore it can determine where regional abattoirs are to be erected and where abattoirs are to be closed down or included elsewhere, etc. In the second place I should like to recommend that the hon. the Minister empower the two bodies to take the final decision with regard to where abattoirs are to be erected on the basis of the above-mentioned planning, whether on a regional basis or vice versa. The whole concept of regional abattoirs may be wrecked if it is to be developed solely on the basis of the co-operation of the municipalities. The implementation of a country-wide overall plan is in the interests of every municipality but also in the interests of the country. In the third place I should like to recommend that the hon. the Minister authorize the Abattoir Commission to erect the abattoirs itself on the basis of the overall planning if the municipalities refuse to erect the abattoirs. This principle has already been laid down with regard to controlled areas so there is no need for me to elaborate on this. In the fourth place I should like to recommend that the hon. the Minister lay down that only the Abattoir Commission and/or the Abattoir Corporation may draw up the plans for abattoirs through their consultants and architects and that municipalities may perform this function only through the agency of the abovementioned two bodies. This may also be done in collaboration with the division of animal hygiene. With great respect towards consultants and architects, an abattoir is a complicated construction and not an everyday project. Municipalities have already incurred major expenditure in respect of ineffective plans in this respect. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Vryburg to excuse me if I do not comment on his speech which is really concerned with meat production and abattoirs, something which is a little bit out of my line. However, I sincerely trust that the farmers in his area have had a good year as it was obvious from the debate last week that most farmers in South Africa have had a good year. One would have thought from the speeches, however, that most of the reasons were due to the hon. the Minister and his department. While I do not want to detract from the hon. the Minister, I do believe we should take note of what the chairman of the Land Bank said in his annual report, namely that most of the favourable conditions in the agricultural industry in the past year were due to the good rains which South Africa experienced throughout the country as a whole.

I believe that South African farmers are among the best in the world. I have said that before and I stand by that. Those master farmers of ours who fall within the 20% of the farmers who produce 80% of the agricultural production in South Africa, are among the best in the world. South African technology in the agricultural field has made great strides in recent years.

However, I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister the fact that there are certain dangers appearing in the light of certain figures and statistics. Recently it was quoted that 52% of all the people in South Africa live in the agricultural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihood and their accommodation. If one studies the real gross domestic product in South Africa, one sees that these people are earning on average only R146 per capita per annum whereas the nation as a whole earns R586 per capita per annum. I do not believe it is a very healthy situation if one considers, as I have said, that 52% of our people fall into this category. For this reason I believe the economic planners in South Africa should do everything in their power to remove from our available agricultural land as many people as possible. I know there is a great sentiment among certain people that we should retain people on the land, but if people are uneconomically employed on the land, they should rather be removed to other areas, to urban areas, where they could find effective and economic employment in industrial undertakings. I believe this is absolutely necessary in order to allow for a greater capital-intensive form of agriculture resulting from greater mechanization and out of which will come greater productivity, greater productivity from each unit of land area, so that we can ensure food production in South Africa. I believe that high productivity from our land is vital for the future prosperity of South Africa. Therefore I should like to ask whether the time has not come to ask ourselves and the nation whether we are not in fact undervaluing our agriculture’s contribution to the national economy as a whole. I personally believe that we are undervaluing agriculture’s contribution to the economy and I would like to know the reason why. I believe that a lot of this is due to the fact that the mass media tend, regrettably, to make a great thing of the high cost of food products whenever the cost of living is shown to have risen. There is this adverse publicity towards agriculture, which I believe casts an unfair reflection on the farming community as a whole. To bring to the notice of hon. members some of the facts in this connection, I would like to refer to a report which appeared in last week’s Argus wherein it was stated that the cost of living jumped by 17,4% during the last year. But it is interesting to note that food prices went up only 12,5% whereas all other items increased by a total of 19,2%. It is interesting to note that reading matter, which I assume includes newspapers and periodicals, actually rose by 45,7% during the past 12 months. One might ask which really has the greater real value, whether food, upon which all life depends, is more valuable than entertainment. It always amazes me when I see how many people who, looking at them, makes one wonder whether they can afford to go to certain forms of entertainment, indeed pay R1,75 to see a cinema film or R5 for a pop record and who buy a lot of comics and a lot of the literary trash which we see on our book-stands today. People are prepared to buy these things, but yet they are the first ones to complain when the price of milk or bread goes up by one cent.

In order to put things into perspective, I would like to quote from the 1976-’77 statistical survey with respect to consumer prices. During the past year the agricultural producers’ prices, i.e. the price that the farmer gets for his product, increased by only 11,6% whereas the prices of his short-term farming requisites increased by 23,7%, the price of materials for fixed improvements on the farm by 23% and the prices of farming machinery and implements rose by 21%. All these items increased by almost double the increase in the price of the farmer’s products. Sir, I believe that we have to take cognizance of these facts. It must be accepted therefore that, if the price of the farmer’s products has increased by only half the amount by which the other costs have risen, overall the farmer at today’s values is earning less than before, and if this is so, one can reasonably ask the question: If this is so, who is really suffering? There are, I believe, two possibilities as to who is suffering in this particular situation. The first is, I believe, farm labourers, those labourers working on the farm, and also the farm management, the paid employees. These are the first people who could suffer. The second I believe is the person who has invested money in agriculture. Now, I believe that I am correct in saying that farm wages and salaries have been increased during the past few years. I think this can be taken as read. Therefore I firmly believe that the one person who is suffering at the present time, in real money terms, is the one who invested money in farming.

I am most unhappy in this respect and I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that in most of the reports that I have read and studied, I cannot find an analysis, or the statistics, of what each sector of the agricultural industry is earning as far as return on capital is concerned. I am prepared to wager the hon. the Minister that this must range somewhere between 3% to 5% per annum, depending on the form of agriculture. I would therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that an investigation is instituted into the relative values placed on capital, labour and entrepreneurial enterprise in the agricultural industry as compared with the values which we place on these items in other endeavours of our economic life. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister when he does undertake this, to use today’s real value of the assets which the farmers possess. We must accept, if we believe that we are a modern industrial society, that farming is a business and has to operate as a business. I appreciate the sentiments expressed by people when they say farming is a way of life. I am prepared to accept those sentiments, but regardless of those sentiments, farming must also remain a business operation. As with any business in a free enterprise economy, farming must result in a partnership between the capital invested in the business, the labour that works on the farm and also the entrepreneurial skills of the person who is managing it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to differ with the hon. member; indeed, I agree with a great deal of what he said. But I should like to discuss a different topic. I hope, Sir, that you will allow me to make a few remarks about things I have noticed during this debate. Anyone who has been attending these debates for several years, must be struck by the fact that this year—and the debate is already nearing its end—not a single word has been said about agricultural credit. This can only mean one thing, namely that the services which are provided to the farmers of South Africa by the Department of Agricultural Credit are of a particularly high quality, and we cannot but express our thanks towards that department.

Another matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the House—I do not think it has received the attention it deserves—is that the first 26 plots in the irrigation area of the Orange River scheme have already been advertised. Applications for them have already closed and I must point out that this is the beginning of a gigantic irrigation scheme which will hold immense advantages for South Africa in the future. I must congratulate the department on the policy it has followed in this connection, in the sense that the plots, or rather the small farms, which will be granted there, are reasonably large. The irrigation plots are 60 ha in extent and have sufficient water. As the hon. the Minister has so often said: If the jockey knows his job, people can get rich on those plots. I think that this is the right thing. It is the right direction that is being taken, and I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department as well as the Department of Water Affairs on this development. At the moment we are having very great problems on the present irrigation plots in the Free State with regard to community services such as roads and other services, and I should like to suggest that when irrigation areas of this kind are planned in future, serious attention should be given to the community services and they should be planned in advance. I believe that this will be done, but I do not believe that it is inappropriate for me to mention it here.

The hon. the Minister has often used the expression—and because it appeals to me personally, I use it again—that if the jockey knows his job, the people may become rich.

In the time which is still available to me, I should like to devote my attention to a matter which is of great importance to me. This is the training of prospective farmers. When the agricultural faculties were taken over by the universities a few years ago, everybody in those faculties had a hard time. The Department of Agriculture of the University of the Free State had a particularly difficult time, so much so that there was doubt as to whether the faculty could continue to exist. The university decided to meet what it considered to be a need and instituted a course which could be considered an agricultural course in broad outline. One specification for admission to this course, as against the usual B.Sc. (Agric.), was that matriculants did not need mathematics. The enrolment for this course was absolutely phenomenal, so much so that after three years there are 293 students studying at the University of the Free State for this B. Agric, this year. Now the university is faced with the problem that it has to enlarge its grounds. I think that a great blow has been struck for agriculture by the institution of a course like this. This must be seen in conjunction with the fact that the number of students following the B.Sc. (Agric.) course, with the emphasis on a research direction, has not decreased by one single student. There is still the same number of students there. In other words, here we have received 293 students, almost 300 prospective fanners, over a period of three years, who are receiving the most extensive training in the management direction. This is a blow which is being struck as never before by the universities for agriculture in South Africa.

South Africa’s future and its future in Africa is in the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister and in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. It is often said that we should supply Africa with food. But we must not supply Africa alone. By the year 1980 and by the year 2000 it will be difficult to provide our own people with food. There are two ways in which this may be done. The first is by means of new methods and techniques, in other words by research. In the second place it can be done with better management and better jockeys. The university is now training the people. I want to repeat that these people’s courses have simply been differently arranged. For the rest, they follow the same courses and the same classes, they write the same economy examinations and they can be used for work in co-operatives, in fertilizer companies, in education and as professional officers in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. This is an export product which will open up a path for us in Africa because the technicians who have to teach Africa how to produce food, so that Africa may later help to feed the world, must come from South Africa. Those managers, those jockeys, cannot come from anywhere else. Students who follow this course do not find themselves in a cul-de-sac. They may study for an honours degree, a master’s degree or even a doctor’s degree in these farm management techniques. Therefore it is my plea that the hon. the Minister and the department should support and use these graduates as far as possible by appointing them in the department and even by granting bursaries for the training of prospective students.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to me to be able to make my speech after my namesake. It is clear to me that his speech was actually meant to have two chapters. I should like to provide the second.

John Vorster will go down in history as the greatest promotor of détente in the seventies. Circumstances which are developing in Africa will cause history to show that from the eighties, the farmer of the Republic of South Africa was the promoter of détente in Africa, acting quietly and anonymously behind the scenes.

Everyone, no matter how big or small, how rich or poor, how humble or exalted, needs food. The barbarian with his drum and beer pots eats and drinks. The greatest statesmen in the world gather from time to time in order to hold conferences and conclude treaties, treaties which often influence the course of history. They meet at magnificently set tables laden with gold and silver, often with seventeenth-century porcelain but all that magnificence would avail them nothing without the products of the farmer which are served upon that table. The powerful athlete with his bulging muscles, the future heavyweight boxing champion of the world, Mike Schutte, with his power and his muscles, the most delicate ballet dancer, delicately poised on her toes and as beautiful as a butterfly in the field, all need food, the product of the farmer.

This brings me to the farmer as the future maker of détente in Africa. The population of the Republic of South Africa is increasing by 2,6% per year. The increase in the production of food by the South African farmer is 5% per year. I can therefore tell my good colleague, so as to set his mind at rest, that the farmer has a lead of 2½% a year over the population growth in his production of food. In my opinion the farmer of the Republic is therefore building up a food reserve for South Africa. On the other hand, the production of food in some African States is drastically decreasing, while the population rate is drastically increasing, and these are countries which often suffer famine. The question may be asked: We have the food, Africa needs it, but how will they be able to buy it in their poverty? However, there is an idiom which says: A farmer will find a solution. South Africa will have the food and Africa the labour, and exchange agreements can be entered into. Further to what has already been said, I want to say that as a result of larger food requirements in future, a splendid future awaits the farmer of the Republic of South Africa, because the world and Africa need food. Therefore I want to address this plea to the farmers of South Africa today: However inviting, however attractive, however high the offers which they receive for their farms from time to time, they must hold on to their land, because there will be a time in the Republic of South Africa when we will be able to obtain and manufacture everything, while it will not be possible to obtain or manufacture agricultural land.

I should like to dwell briefly on the position of the internal consumer in South Africa. Although the consumers in South Africa complain about the high price of food from time to time, I should like to mention a few figures to indicate how favourably we compare with other countries in the world. Beef costs R6,53 per kg in Bonn, R2,20 per kg in Canberra, R4,68 per kg in London, R3,30 per kg in Ottawa, R4,84 per kg in Paris, R22,43 per kg in Tokyo and R3,17 per kg in America, while it costs R2,00 per kg in South Africa. This means that the average price in the world is R4,84 per kg and that beef in South Africa is therefore almost twice as cheap as in the other countries of the world. Bread costs 90 cents per kg in Bonn, 58 cents per kg in Canberra, 31 cents per kg in London, 46 per kg in Ottawa, R1,17 per kg in Paris, 61 cents per kg in Rome, 61 cents per kg in Tokyo, 72 cents per kg in Washington and 36 cents per kg in South Africa. The average world price is 63 cents per kg, which means that the price in South Africa is once again almost twice as cheap. Therefore I can tell the consumer in South Africa that although food prices have increased a great deal recently, the farmer of South Africa is still providing the consumer with the cheapest food.

Mr. Chairman, a farmer always has a request to make, and therefore I want to conclude by addressing a request to the hon. the Minister. The department recently began to make funds available for Bantu housing on our farms. I believe that these funds have now been exhausted and that no more funds are available at the moment. I therefore want to make a serious request that the Minister and his department should see that more funds are made available in future for the provision of Bantu housing on farms, because better housing for our Bantu on the farms will help to bring about higher food production in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, judging by the contributions to this debate by various members, there are two conclusions in particular which may be arrived at. The first is that as far as the production of the South African agriculture in the year 1976 is concerned, especially when it is compared to the requirements of 1976 and to the agricultural production in other countries, has shown up very well. The second conclusion, to which one is led by the friends as well as the enemies of the hon. the Minister in politics and industry, is that the Minister is reliable and competent, and that he is a popular Minister of Agriculture. The Minister knows his job. I should like to refer to what the Minister recently said at the Food Expo in Pretoria. He made certain statements there. He pointed out that we in South Africa are faced with an immense population increase. This is a problem which is experienced throughout the world, of course. But the population increase of South Africa is one of the highest in the world. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat also referred to it. The population increase in South Africa is approximately 2,7% per annum as against the world average of 2% per annum. One of the greatest problems which agriculture has in South Africa is to provide food for the rapidly increasing population of our country. Secondly the hon. the Minister said that he was disappointed in the productivity of agricultural labour in South Africa. This matter has also been dealt with by various other speakers today. Thirdly he spoke about the effective application of mechanization in agriculture. He said that attention should be given to it. Lastly he drew attention to the standard of agricultural management ability in South Africa. He said that something must be done about this.

Because we have a Minister of Agriculture who is popular and who is universally accepted as a man who is competent and knows his job, I should like to make an urgent request to the hon. the Minister to make use of his reply to this debate not only to thank speakers for their contributions and to give a review of agriculture over the past year and of plans for the future, but also to give warnings in clear, frank language where warnings must be given to all the sections of the population of South Africa and to announce real, effective plans in order to combat our agricultural and related problems. A Minister has to make himself unpopular sometimes by making unpopular statements and producing unpopular plans, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to use his status, his authority and his popularity by issuing certain warnings and announcing definite plans.

The first matter to which I should like to refer is family planning and the food shortage with which South Africa will be faced within the next few years. Recently Mr. Lloyd, the chairman of the S.A. Sugar Association, said that the world was facing a disaster of unequalled magnitude. Food production on the continent of Africa is also showing a per capita decrease of 2% per annum. It is also predicted that there will be wheat shortages in South Africa of 1,8 million tons in 1985 and of 7,3 million tons by the end of this century. In this connection one has to bear in mind the figures which the hon. the Minister himself quoted, namely that by the end of this century our population will have doubled, and that by the year 2020 our population will have tripled. If one takes all these facts into consideration, I believe that it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to discuss this matter with the members of the Cabinet who have responsibilities in this connection, to address a warning to the nation in this connection. For instance, if one considers that the resources which are used in the production of fertilizers are dwindling throughout the world, something which will lead to higher production costs, and if one considers the soil erosion which is being experienced throughout the world today, a serious warning must be issued by the Minister of Agriculture, because he is responsible for the production of food, that we will not be able to produce the necessary food unless urgent steps are taken to apply family planning effectively and to exercise effective control over the population increase in South Africa.

Order! I think that the hon. member is somewhat out of order. The hon. the Minister can hardly be held responsible for family planning. If the hon. member had referred to artificial insemination, it would have been more relevant.

Mr. Chairman, I am not holding the hon. the Minister responsible for family planning. I am simply saying that he should warn those who are responsible for it that he will not be able to provide food for the population increase which is predicted. I think that this is an important duty which rests upon the hon. the Minister’s shoulders.

Labour productivity, agricultural mechanization and agricultural management ability are another three aspects which have been mentioned by various hon. members. The issue is food production and productivity. In the homelands, for example, the productivity is only one seventh of that on comparable land outside the homelands. In the Transkei the maize production is only one thirtieth of the existing potential. Then there are all the other problems to which hon. members have already referred in this debate, problems with respect to labour productivity, mechanization and management ability in agriculture. In this respect there is also a duty resting upon the shoulders of the hon. the Minister. He is expected to announce effective plans by means of which these problems can be combated. It is so important and so extremely urgent that immediate action should be taken, that plans must be made immediately to solve these problems. I believe that the hon. the Minister should announce his plans in this connection during this debate. They must be comprehensive, radical and dramatic plans. The hon. the Minister will have to use his imagination in order to draw up plans of this nature.

What is being done today with respect to labour training, as well as with respect to the training of farmers, is perhaps impressive in comparison with what is being done elsewhere in the world. It is definitely impressive in comparison with what is being done elsewhere in Africa. When the requirements of the future are taken into consideration, however, requirements with respect to soil conservation and increased productivity, it is very clear that what is being done at present is insufficient. The hon. the Minister must therefore take immediate steps in order to see that what is being done is effective.

Training in agriculture must be in-service training. It is impossible to send all agricultural labourers, or even all farmers, to colleges, universities or other training centres. Training must take place on the farms. This is the type of system which the hon. the Minister will have to apply. In my opinion it is important that the hon. the Minister should announce that he will need large amounts of money for the creation of the type of training which I am advocating. It is also his duty, therefore, to inform this hon. House of the fact that he needs money to enable him to put training systems of that nature into operation. He will have to do this if he intends to achieve the goal which will enable South Africa to provide sufficient food to its ever-growing population.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk as one Schoeman to another. We have an idiom and an Afrikaans of our own. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the fact that precisely 16 years ago, during this same debate, I raised three matters here. Those three matters concerned, on the one hand, the better control of the marketing of perishable products. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture will be able to testify that it took me ten years before this became a reality.

It is still not right today!

Yes, we shall keep on negotiating in that regard. The second matter is—and this is very important, especially in connection with what the hon. member for Fauresmith said—the introduction of an apprenticeship system for White boys on farms. To express this in a different way, we can speak about the granting of professional status to the farmer in South Africa. The hon. member for Fauresmith referred to the academic training provided by agricultural faculties. In this respect I should give him my wholehearted support. However, here we are dealing with the need for professional academic staff. I want to take this a step further, but I should like to word it in a slightly different way. I should like to make a request for the creation and advancement of a practical profession on farms, and with specific reference to Whites.

There is a wise saying which goes: “He who cultivates the land, will eventually possess it.” What is our position in South Africa today? I should like to illustrate my argument statistically; unfortunately the time is very limited. According to the latest information—that of 1974—the number of White-owned agricultural units was 79 854. If we take an average of three Whites per unit, it gives a total of 293 562. The non-White representation, according to the same figures, was 1 440 900, which consisted for the most part of unskilled labourers. I should like to make it very clear that this is not a case of White versus non-White, and I shall go into this point again later. The ratio is approximately one to seven or eight, and the situation is very serious. We can do what we like, argue and theoreticize just as we wish, but if we are not careful, the one who is cultivating the soil will eventually possess it. This does not only apply to the farming industry, but to all other industries in the country as well. The time has arrived for us to ask ourselves how long the Whites are still going to lean on the shoulders of the non-Whites, socially as well as economically.

When I refer to the non-White in the agricultural industry, I may just add that it does not cause any problems, because it will bring about a shift, because the mining industry in South Africa today employs between 300 000 and 500 000 foreign Bantu. Perhaps a quarter of the 1,4 million Bantu labourers in the agricultural industry may be transferred to the mining industry without any inconvenience and with far greater financial benefits for them.

I cannot believe that we do not have 1 000 White farmers in South Africa who could not have at least one or two White boys trained as apprentices. They will have to study for one year academically at one of the faculties to which my hon. friend for Fauresmith referred. After that they could gain practical experience on a farm for three years and then return to one of these approved training institutions for further theoretical or academic study in their final year. In this way we will be able to eliminate up to 40% of the unskilled labour over a period of ten or twenty years. The decrease of approximately 15% in the White-owned farming units—in other words, 2½%per year—may be decreased to the advantage of both groups concerned, because in the same period the non-Whites increased by 4% per year.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister at once that we have our own idiom. I am not one of those people who believe—as they say in America, that industry demands it, that it is a trend of the times and therefore an excuse for us to allow the White rural areas to become devoid of Whites. I am not one of those camp-followers.

It is a cultural, traditional and economic unit which must not be weakened, but strengthened. I know that the hon. the Minister who himself is the largest single farmer in South Africa, will concede that my argument is correct that managerial skill, however, expert, also has its limitations. With a decrease like this, those limits of managerial skill could be exceeded, and this is dangerous. In this case we have to make a long-term investment. Hon. members may now ask me where we are going to find these people.

On Saturday morning at my home I spoke to two people like this. In one case the person comes from the city, but his eyes sparkle when he talks about farm life and the land. He has not made a failure of his life in the city, because he has saved R30 000 or R40 000 but he comes to me and says: “Uncle Hans, help me!” This person is unhappy, he wants to be happy. He has been bred in the country and he wants to return, but capital requirements and other problems prevent him from doing so. People like this do exist and hon. members must therefore not ask me where we are going to find them. We shall have to train a minimum of 1 500 to 3 000 White apprentices on our White farms annually if we want to carry these fine projects of dialogue and feeding of Africa and the rest of the world into effect in the long term. It is mere theory unless we realize the hard reality which exists in practice. We need more White boys on our farms.

Inherent in this is also the further advantage that it is going to reflect in production costs and the prices of products. We have all witnessed cases where unskilled labourers have not fastened the filter cap of a tractor securely enough and the oil has squirted out after three or four trips up and down the field. As a result of this unskilled labour it can cost the farmer R500 to R600 for repairs to the tractor’s engine. This happens daily on farms in South Africa. It is the result of a lack of supervision and managerial skill. We must now face up to this matter.

Whose fault is it?

I am not meting out blame, but making a contribution in a responsible way and out of love for my fatherland. That negative member is ludicrous and irresponsible.

In the Industrial Conciliation Act provision is made for facilities for the training of apprentices. I should like to address a serious request to the hon. the Minister today to make an intensive, thorough study, together with the Departments of National Education and Labour, of this matter and its possibilities. There are more than 1 000 farmers who could take from one to three boys into their service and pay them more than what they could earn in the building industry or the motor industry. I have a few facts available in this connection. In the building industry a young man can earn approximately R23,60 per week during their first year of apprenticeship. This is approximately R100 per month. In his fifth year he can earn R67,60 per week; approximately R270 per month. There are many farmers who pay three to four times this amount today for unskilled White managers or labourers on their farms. All which these young boys want is the security of a profession with a future. If a boy like this has that security, he will come to the farm tomorrow. We will then once again have the right boy with his heart in the right place and with the right state of mind. The latest information proves that more than 47% of our farmers were older than 50 years in 1960. This figure is definitely much higher today. What process is taking place here?

Yesterday my sons spoke to me about a bushveld farm of 3 000 morgen which they want to hire. The son of the farmer who owns the farm, is a lawyer who does not want to farm. The farm of 3 000 morgen, which is divided into ten camps, is not being used. This is what is happening. We should give serious consideration to the transfer of working people to the rural areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to identify myself with what the hon. member for Namaqualand said in this House last week when he delivered a plea for the small farmer. This also links up with the argument of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I should like to break a lance for the small farmer. From the nature of the case it is virtually impossible today for a young farmer to give any thought whatsoever to purchasing a large unit or farm. The cause of this is the tremendously high commercial prices of farms. To start a farm from scratch today can only be attempted if one is the son of a man who is virtually a millionaire or who is able to obtain immense support by means of loans from some organization or other, for example, the Land Bank or the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, but in that case one is weighed down with a heavy burden of debt right from the start. I have a very soft sport for the small farmer. I myself grew up on a small farm, one of the many in my district, Marico, which in this respect is characteristic of our country as a whole. I make bold to say that not a single other stratum of the population in South Africa made as substantial a contribution towards the development of South Africa during the first three or four decades of this century. Their contribution was not so much to produce for the world market on a broad level or to fill the granaries of the State. Their contribution was that they provided for their own wants, i.e. that they were self-sufficient. They implemented a thoughtful Joseph policy, and if today we were able to retain that care and thoughtfulness which had such deep roots in our rural areas, the contribution of the small and middle-ranking farmer would be far greater than can be calculated in figures. In my childhood, sufficient grain, such as maize, wheat, dried beans as well as dried fruit, etc., for a period of 12 to 18 months was stored at the end of a harvest every year. Necessities such as meat, butter, vegetables and bread were not purchased in town at a café or chain-store, as is the practice today. By practising home craft and home industry they provided for their needs. Their expenditure was cut which meant that many of them had a small or no burden of debt to carry. This is a good example, one which may be followed today, not only by farmers, but also by many consumers in general. Many small farmers survived times of drought and depression in an exemplary manner.

We are told that it was mostly small farmers who went bankrupt during those depression years, but I want to tell you, Sir, that even today in my district we have of the descendants of those small farmers of 60 to 70 years ago, still living and farming happily and profitably on those farms. These people were attached to the land; they loved their land. They knew and loved every gully, every ridge, every tree, every stone and vlei. They gave names to all those places on their farms. Just as children in a large family each had its own name and personality, so some sentiment or meaning was attached to every place on that farm. How wonderful that was! On the farm on which I grew up, barely 350 morgen in extent, there were places such as the Spioenkoppie, the Rooikatkraal, the Gemsbokklofie, the Gaffelkop, Bulhoek, and the Vanggate, where the Voortrekkers trapped game, the Buitewater, and the Syfering where water seeped into a small stream from underneath the rocks and we could quench our thirst while we were herding the livestock. There was the Kleinkoppie, the Daskoppie, the Rooihaaskoppie and the Koedoeskraal, the Diepkloof, the Klapperrand, etc. This illustrates the small farmer’s love for and attachment to his farm.

We must encourage and retain this love for the land. The small farmers must not always be disparaged by referring to them as so-called uneconomic units producing a mere 20% of the total agricultural production, so the sooner they leave their farms, the better. No, Sir, those people have made a contribution and have protected and cared for their soil, lands, orchards, vegetable gardens and pastures, just as a woman protects and cares for her flower garden. No weeds, such as khaki bush or burweed, which are common today, were allowed to take root there. Every farm was looked upon as a precious jewel.

Another contribution, perhaps the greatest, which those small farmers made in those years, was the human material that came from the rural areas, those who were born in the red-brick homes, because boys and girls ran for many miles from the thresholds of those small farm houses to attend school, as we see the Black and Brown children doing in the rural areas today. Through their studies they made their own way to the colleges and universities and there was an influx into the Public Service as teachers, ministers, doctors and professors. In this way they made a contribution to South Africa. History may record this as a unique achievement of the rural areas and not so much of the cities and towns. We may ask the leading figures from the beginning of the second half of this century where they were born, where they came from and where they gained their love, education and moulding. They derived these things from the small farm atmosphere. There is a big difference between a city dweller and a person who is attached to a farm. One has the rich and the poor in the cities, so too one has the land barons and the small farmers in the rural areas. A neglected large farm, a farm on which there is a lack of supervision and management, produces less per area unit than the well, intensively cultivated small farm which is owned and cultivated by the right calibre of farmer who has the right attitude. First he provides for his own family, but he also produces a great deal for consumption by the country.

In conclusion; the small farmer also saves manpower because on the medium-sized and small farms one still finds the farmer himself on the tractor. He himself is behind the wheel of his truck when he transports his grain. On those farms, every man, woman and child makes their contribution. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. member for Marico will excuse me if I do not follow his train of thought. I believe the contribution made by the small farm owners in South Africa has been considerable. But I wish to bring the course of the debate back to the hon. the Minister and to the very heavy responsibility which rests on his shoulders at the moment. The speedy implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act just might have an effect on the unbelievably high prices of food. I was, incidentally, very grateful to hear the views expressed by the chairman of the commission, the hon. member for Bethal, with regard to consumer orientated representation on the National Marketing Council, and this will be a healthy move in the right direction.

South Africa is in a desperate situation in regard to food prices. The average housewife at the moment cannot keep pace with the present rate of escalation. People in the lower income groups, such as pensioners, can hardly afford to keep body and soul together these days. Just recently we had increases in the price of cooking oil, milk, mealie meal and margarine. When it comes to meat, for example, the better cuts are beyond the pockets of all but the very rich. Meat itself has, as a matter of fact, become a luxury in many households. I am pleased to hear from the hon. member for Graaff Reinet that the recommendations in regard to meat marketing are revolutionary, and I hope that their implementation is therefore going to have some effect on the price of meat. The hon. the Minister has in the past always refused to accept that standard of living was dropping all the time. But I believe this to be the case and that it is due in a large measure to the high food prices. I want to say to the hon. the Minister again that any South African housewife can tell him that the standard of living is in fact dropping.

According to the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the price of, for example, vegetables alone rose by 33% during the year 1974-’75. The hon. the Minister must accept that he has a responsibility to both the farmer and the consumer, and neither of them is very happy about the deal they are getting at the moment. In particular, the difference between the price received by the farmer and the price paid by the consumer is far too large. The reason for this is inadequate control of marketing procedures. Now the hon. the Minister has a chance to take action as a result of the commission’s report. I hope that he is going to do so fast and energetically and that it will not be very long before we have in operation a strong National Marketing Council with reasonable consumer-orientated representation. Right now we have the situation where the consumer’s ability to pay is being stretched as far as it can be stretched. If prices go higher, I believe that agriculture will suffer. I am looking forward to hearing from the hon. the Minister as to how fast he is going to take action in this respect.

I want to change the thrust of my debate this morning to another matter. I want to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the urgent need to take a look at the first schedule of the National Parks Act which defines the areas of our existing national parks. It becomes more and more apparent every day that we do not have enough national parks in South Africa. We can take a tremendous pride, I do admit, in what the Republic has achieved in the way of game conservation in South Africa, and our national parks are a show-case to the world and are enjoyed and appreciated by thousands of tourists every year. They are indeed a credit to us. The area of land set aside for game conservation, however, is already proving to be inadequate. Thousands of tourists every year are unable to visit our parks at peak periods. It is necessary to book months ahead to obtain reservations and those who are unable for one reason or another to plan their lives that far ahead, are deprived of an opportunity to visit the parks. One of the criticisms frequently expressed about our parks is that they are becoming too civilized. Too many people are allowed into the parks at any one time, so much so that the balance of nature is being disturbed. Certainly I think that it is true to say that with the best will in the world, our existing parks would not be able to make facilities available to vastly increased numbers of tourists while at the same time being maintained in their present natural state. An increase in the number of visitors allowed would be harmful to the existing environment. Recently, we have seen figures of the anticipated population increase in South Africa over the next 45 years. During that period, as the hon. member for Bryanston pointed out, the population of South Africa is expected to increase threefold. As the population of the world increases and the population of South Africa increases, the strain on our land resources will be very much greater. Land will be needed to grow the food in order to feed our people. This is an enormous task in itself and every square centimetre of land will have to be put to good use. It my belief that unless we act now the provision for further national parks will be forgotten as the pressure on land resources increases. In an answer to a question I put to the hon. the Minister earlier this session, he told me that only 2,4% of our total land area is at present occupied by national parks. I quote from his reply as follows—

I would like to say that I believe the time is ripe now and that it is vitally necessary to give our attention to opening up huge new areas within the next five to ten years. 2,4% of our total land area is not very much in comparison with many other countries in Africa and other countries in the world. Many other countries have set aside areas in excess of 10% as protected areas. In this respect we are therefore lagging far behind. I realize too that the Department of Forestry plays its share in the setting aside of land, but I believe that there is a very strong case for starting the planning for new areas immediately. The other day I read a paper by a professor of Potchefstroom University about a projection of South Africans’ requirements for leisure-time activities over the next 40 years. He stressed inter alia that a considerably increased number of Whites in South Africa would be required to be accommodated in our national parks and that a growing number of Blacks would require similar facilities. In 20 to 30 years this could run into millions. I think it has become quite apparent that we will not be able to meet this demand with our present facilities and that we will have to start planning for the setting aside of larger national park areas. I would be interested to hear from the hon. the Minister what has happened to the one-time suggested Tongoland Park. Is there any hope of action with regard to that? I feel very strongly that we should start looking for new areas. One can only mourn the demise after the war of the old Dongola reserve, and perhaps I could suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should immediately authorize the National Parks Board of Trustees to investigate the desirability of declaring a new park along the banks of the Limpopo River in the north and northwestern Transvaal. I believe the matter is an urgent one and the time to act is now. I would like to predict that as land becomes scarcer in the future, there will be considerable pressure from sections of the public to cut down on the size of the existing reserves. Not only would I like to see this pressure resisted, but I would also like to see our national parks doubled in size over the next 20 years. There will always be those who regard national parks as a luxury, but in my view we are holding this land in trust for the future. We are insuring the retention of something which is of incalculable value and can never be restored once it is lost. Unless we act now, therefore, our chances of success appear to be very slim indeed. It is my intention to help those who are mounting a campaign for the enlargement and extension of our national park areas. I am confident that this campaign will be supported by most of our people in South Africa. If the Government takes immediate action, I believe the public of South Africa would be behind the Government.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member who has just spoken, had a point when he spoke about parks. However, one involuntarily gets the idea that it is very easy to set aside land at this stage, but I do not want to be the one to do so because farmers will have to be bought out to make provision for wild life, and I suppose this will not be such an easy task. However, in principle I agree with him that this is essential.

However, what I do hold against him is that he glibly made a number of statements for which he does not have any proof. He said that the food-prices were extremely high and suggested, by implication that the farmers of South Africa were to blame for the food-prices being as high as they are today.

I said that they were not getting enough.

However, one should ask oneself whether a proper analysis has been made in order to indicate why there is such a large difference between the producer price and the consumer price. The answer is an inquiry like this has in fact been made. The co-operative movement would never have taken root in South Africa and developed to what it is today were it not for the fact that the manipulation and exploitation of the primary producer had begun in the earliest times. Even today, when food reaches the public, prices are extremely high, but if one takes the matter back to the producer, one finds that in some cases there is a difference of between 600 and 800% between the price the producer obtains for his product and the eventual price paid by the consumer.

What I actually want to deal with is the question of home industries. A year or so ago I dealt here with the question of home industries. Perhaps one should have it put on record that home industrialists are people living in towns and cities. By and large they are housewives who are concerned about the high prices which they actually have to pay for the product of the farmer and also about the quality of the product which is available.

If the price of products is too high, such products cannot be sold by cafe owners or the owners of other shops and then the products deteriorate. Then the product is not what it was originally intended to be. As a result of this co-operative home industries have arisen throughout the country. It is interesting to note what pressure is being brought to bear on these home industries in various parts of our country. Through their stable municipal councils, which largely consist of businessmen, sometimes make it difficult for these cooperative home industrialists to make a livelihood. They receive their vegetables, homemade bread, cakes, etc., from their members and they sell these fresh products to the public at the price which the farmer receives for his produce plus a percentage to cover administrative costs and the rental of the building in which the home industrialists are accommodated.

In the past the hon. the Minister went out of his way to try and bring about uniformity, but this has not been effected as yet. I resent the action of some health officers in municipal areas, even after the hon. the Minister’s interpretation of an abattoir, for example, for slaughtering free-ranging chickens on a small scale. These people’s interpretation of an abattoir, is, however, of such a nature that no farmers in their areas are able to supply their produce fresh. The result of this has been that there is an open market for the large chicken dealers and for those who slaughter chickens on a sufficiently large scale to be able to afford to establish so-called approved abattoirs. I should like to quote from what the hon. the Minister wrote to one of these home industries, so that it may be placed on record. I quote—

Whereas the hon. the Minister has attached this interpretation to this, some of these tin soldiers, as I should like to call them at times, who have certain powers, have kept to the letter of the Act and have made it impossible for housewives to slaughter chickens, because they demand that the chickens be slaughtered at an approved abattoir. Then, Sir, the following is said—

Now you can see, Mr. Chairman, that although they are not prepared to make provision for this, they expect the housewife to establish a separate abattoir which will meet the requirements laid down by the Act, and which is of municipal standard. They went on to say—

The address is supplied—

Josini is situated approximately 212 km from Vryheid, and the other address which is supplied, in Pietermaritzburg, is a distance of 320 km from Vryheid. The result is that the housewives are placed in a position which even makes them feel afraid to slaughter a chicken and give it to friends in the town as a present, because it may be considered as having been sold, and in their case the health inspector may either confiscate the chicken or prosecute the people, both the person who slaughtered the chicken and the person who received it.

They think that is a real “fowl” up!

You are quite right, Sir, they think it is such a “fowl” up that I have received complaints from as far afield as the constituency of my colleague from Brits. There they have the problem that when they have the municipality on their side, the health inspectors are against them, and when they have the inspectors on their side, the municipality is against them. They come forward with all kinds of difficulties to prevent, for example, the baking of home-made bread, cakes, etc., because they have suddenly discovered that, in terms of the definition of “kitchen” a special kitchen must be built outside the usual kitchen in which we all grew up and received our food, our coffee, milk, home-made bread, etc. A special kitchen of this kind must meet certain requirements before those people may bake bread, etc., to give to the home industries so that it may be sold on their behalf. It is very clear to me that, in the large majority of cases, the problem arises because of the interpretation which the health authorities of the municipalities attach to the Act. Their attitude is that something of this kind is an ordinary business, and sometimes they also have the objection that the people do not pay licence fees.

Sir, the issue is not the question of licence fees when a home industry is established. It is simply a question of a group of people taking a joint decision to further the activities which they are able to practise individually through a channel and for which they hire people to provide certain services for them. For example, there are services such as the collecting and eventual selling of these articles. Normally, the system operates on the basis of the article being marked. Therefore if the farmer supplies his article to a co-operative home industry to be sold, he delivers his article at the depot and simply carries on with his farming activities. He puts the price on his article and guarantees that his article meets the requirements concerning grade and freshness. However, if one looks at fruit, vegetables and other articles which are sold at tearooms, one finds that there is an immense difference in quality and that some of those articles are old. The co-operative home industry, on the other hand, simply asks the owner to collect the surplus after a certain article has remained unsold for a day and is no longer deemed fit for human consumption. In that case the owner can feed it to his animals or devise some other means of processing it economically or using it in another way. My request is that the hon. the Minister should help us. He is the only man to whom we can complain. It is of no avail to go to the health authorities because the Department of Health has delegated its powers to the municipalities which, in turn, have made regulations as these suit them. Each of the municipalities interprets the definitions as it suits them. Fortunately similar difficulties are not experienced in the case of all home industries. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vryheid, who has just resumed his seat, said very enlightening things about home industries. I agree with what he said in this regard and consequently I shall make no further comment on his speech.

Mr. Chairman, Middelburg in the Cape is generally considered as the centre of the small stock industry of South Africa. Two kilometres away from Middelburg there is the well-known Grootfontein Agricultural College. This college is situated very centrally in the major sheep-grazing areas of our country. These include, inter alia, the Karoo, Eastern Cape and Southern Free State. These areas are our major small stock industry areas because in these areas farmers keep 9 815 000 head of woolled sheep, 4 757 000 head of non-woolled sheep and 1 434 000 goats—a total of more than 17 million head of small stock.

The State veterinary surgeon and his staff who serve the above-mentioned area, are accommodated in a laboratory on the campus of the Grootfontein Agricultural College. This laboratory is one of the four laboratories in South Africa and South West Africa. The remaining three are in Pietermaritzburg, Stellenbosch and Windhoek. The regional laboratory at Middelburg provides veterinary services on a diagnostic and inspection level in respect of all farm and household animals in these vast areas which, as I have said, include the Karoo, Eastern Cape and Southern Free State. These are the major small stock regions in our country. Farmers in this area keep more than 17 million head of small stock. This laboratory is, of course, the most important research laboratory in the country as far as small stock is concerned. As regards diagnostics and research, these regional laboratories have various divisions, including divisions of bacteriology, serology, chemical pathology, histopathology, virology, etc. The bacteriological activities in this laboratory cover an extremely wide field of organisms, microplasms and fungi. The chief and staff of that laboratory are doing work of an excellent quality, work which is of inestimable value to the farmer, especially to the small stock farmer.

In those areas veterinary surgeons are extremely scarce and the farmers are dependent on the diagnosis and research of this regional laboratory. The importance of the work being done at that laboratory, cannot be over-emphasized. Since 1974, with the excessive rains in the small stock areas, diseases which used to be unknown have occurred and become more prevalent in those areas. I have in mind diseases such as footrot and Rift Valley fever. These are not diseases which normally used to occur in the Karoo. It is a pity that those people who are performing such an important job of work for the small stock farmer, have to work under very difficult circumstances in their laboratories, due to a lack of space. Here we have a group of veterinary surgeons and technicians who are doing their work with dedication and enthusiasm. Therefore I believe that they deserve a well-equipped laboratory in which to do their work.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to give priority to extensions to that regional laboratory in order to provide adequate working space to the staff. The agricultural college at Grootfontein, and the Agricultural Research Institute for the Karoo, fulfil an essential function in the training of prospective farmers. This year as many as 100 students have enrolled for the two-year diploma course offered at the institution. I think the time has arrived and the need has arisen for introducing a three-year course, a course which will afford students the opportunity of specializing in a particular direction. For example, a start may be made at the Grootfontein Agricultural College with a specialized course in stock diseases and grazing. I connect grazing and stock diseases because many cattle diseases are caused by deficiencies arising from malnutrition.

We are aware of the fact that even more veterinary surgeons will be trained in the future. However, I am not very optimistic about the possibility of more veterinary surgeons setting up business in the rural areas. The depopulation of the rural areas is accelerating and I believe that veterinary surgeons will set up business in the larger centres, as is the case at the moment. Therefore a third-year student who specializes in stock diseases and grazing will not only be of great use to himself and his own farming interests, but will also be of immeasurable value to his fellow-farmers, especially in the small stock areas of the Karoo, where veterinary surgeons are extremely scarce.

Another specialized direction which I have in mind is farm management. Farm management is no longer simply a way of life, as it used to be. It has become a very sensitive and involved business enterprise. Today young farmers need only the best training. Other third-year courses can of course be instituted at other agricultural colleges, specialized courses in viticulture, the cultivation of citrus fruits, dairy farming and agronomy. It is very important that such courses should be of a practical nature. The students must not be taught theory alone, but they must also be given the opportunity of applying in practice the knowledge they have gained.

With the standardization of the two-year diploma course, obtaining a diploma must be the requirement for admission to a specialized course in the third year. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this suggestion of mine. The institution of a third-year course will definitely fill a large gap in agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the hon. member for De Aar will have any objection if I do not react to his arguments, because he made a special appeal to the hon. the Minister and I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to it. However, I should like to tell the hon. member that we on this side of the House agree with him that an extension of the regional laboratory is necessary. The hon. member made out a sound case in this regard. We agree with the hon. member that there should be more veterinary surgeons, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will heed the appeal of the hon. member in this regard. I must say, however, that this is a matter which this side of the House has been advocating for many years. The hon. the Minister will be able to corroborate this.

Today I should like to make an appeal in the interests of the forgotten ostrich farmer with his unsold ostrich skins.

Are you going to gossip again?

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn is asking whether I am going to gossip again. The last time I raised the matter, he gave me no support whatsoever. But when the hon. member returned to his constituency he found that I had been correct and that he had been wrong. The hon. member then gave his voters a firm undertaking that he would support them in this matter, and that he would assist them by making the necessary representations to the hon. the Minister. I hope the hon. member will honour his undertaking today, because the last time he raised this matter in the House, he did not know what was going on in his constituency. The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself, because he is the representative of a large constituency and he does not know anything about their problems.

You must look out. He is still going to Walmer.

He may come to Walmer, but there we do not bury our heads in the sand like ostriches.

Today the ostrich farmer finds himself in an impossible situation because of the attitude of certain people in the co-operative society to which he belongs. I should like to emphasize that I am referring to the marketing of the skins only and not to the marketing of the plumes. An expert wrote to me and sent me a copy of a letter which the co-operative society had sent to clients in the Far East. In that letter reference was made to the nonsensical and stupid conditions laid down for the manufacturers of the product abroad. Restrictions are imposed on the manufacturers in respect of to whom and how they are to sell the product. The manufacturers object most strongly to the fact that they, after they have bought the product, should be dictated to with regard to the question of to whom and how they are to sell the product. The manufacturers are advised, inter alia, that if they experience any problems, they are to report to the South African consulate. I have made inquiries in this regard and experts who have hundreds of agents all over the world and who are au faitwith the state of affairs, have told me that it is unheard of that these people should go to the South African consulate with their problems. This is only one example of what is going on in that co-operative society. An expert has told me that it is absolute nonsense to request the buyers to report to the consulate. He goes further and says that he thinks that the action of the co-operative society is ludicrous and that its selling methods are quite ridiculous.

†I am seriously perturbed about the failure

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

Mr. Chairman, I only have 10 minutes at my disposal, the hon. the Deputy Minister may put questions to me after this debate.

†I am seriously perturbed about the failure to market the ostrich skins, and I am sure the hon. the Minister shares my concern in this regard. The result is that the unsold stock at hand is approximately 50 000 skins valued at about R5 million. This R5 million in foreign exchange is very badly needed by South Africa. Furthermore, the producers and farmers need that R5 million very desperately in order to try and keep the wolf away from the door and to cover their overheads. I have close ties with Oudtshoorn and I should like to see this industry prosper. I should not like to see this industry languishing, as it is at the moment. I have received information from various sources, from people who are seriously pertubed about the situation and who would like to see the situation rectified urgently. In the few minutes allocated to me, I shall deal with the main aspects. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that my informants have crossed political barriers to come and talk to me about this matter. I am not going to make a political issue of it. This is purely a financial and agricultural issue. If the hon. the Minister wants to he can make a political issue of it, but I believe that this matter is above politics and that it should be kept above politics.

The ostrich farmers are desperately worried because of the fact that weak amateurism in marketing has caused a huge backlog in unsold skins. The farmers are worried because they are not receiving an adequate return on their money. They are also worried because they need income to cover their overheads. As I have said before, they have to keep the wolf away from the door. The farmers have been told by the co-op to diversify and that they are only entitled to slaughter on a quota basis. In other words, the industry is being stultified and contracted and expansion is being reduced dramatically. All this is happening because of a failure to market the skins. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Chairman, when one fires a random shot one hears a howl.

†I am told that approximately 27 000 skins are sold annually. I am also told that the potential market throughout the world for this particular type of skin is 65 000 skins and, furthermore, that the entire output per annum could be sold in America alone. I can give the hon. the Minister details of where the skins can be sold if he wants it. On 26 February 1976 the general manager of the co-op admitted that he was making a failure of this particular job. I want to quote from a letter of his dated 26 February 1976—

There is an admission. I have said that it comes from the general manager of the co-op. In the same letter the general manager admits that because of difficulties they have decided to consult an American firm to make a market survey. I sincerely hope that the market survey will be a success. However, the problem lies at home, and that is why the hon. the Minister must make an investigation into the matter. I am told that the situation has reached desperate proportions, and yet the hon. member for Oudtshoorn is complacent. I am told that he was completely out of touch with the situation when I raised the matter for the first time in Parliament during this session. I only hope he has now learned what the actual position is and is now prepared to do something about it.

According to someone who inspected the tannery at Oudtshoorn very recently, most of the ostrich skins have been tanned black. It is a well-known fact that it is only in Japan that one can sell ostrich skins which have been tanned black in great quantities. However, Japan is not buying large quantities of black-tanned skins at the moment. The result is that one is sitting with the skins which should have been left untanned instead of having been tanned black. I am told that it was a totally reckless move to have tanned all those skins black.

My information is that the overseas agents are desperately upset with the behaviour of the co-op. The co-op is going directly to the customers of the agents. Admittedly they pay the agents 2% commission when they sell directly to the customer. However, the agents feel that this is totally wrong; they feel that it is immoral and unethical that the co-op should go directly to the customers. They would like to sell to their own customers and thus earn a higher commission. The feeling is, and the hon. the Minister must agree, that the ostrich farmer is not getting a square deal. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the ostrich farmer would like to chart his own course and his own destiny. The ostrich farmers would like to form their own co-op. If they have done this, then they can decide how they want to market the skins and whether they want to market the skins through their own resources or through private resources. I am told that if they have their own co-op they will employ an expert international entrepreneur, a man who knows the sophistication of selling on the international market.

The ostrich farmers have made an enormous investment in land and stock, they therefore deserve a sympathetic approach from the hon. the Minister and I am sure he will give them that kind of approach. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is surprising how some people in life have a gift for spoiling everything. This is what the hon. member for Walmer has now done. He has come along with his gossip again, all the things he has ferreted out, and he has completely spoiled this fine agricultural debate. If one goes back to the Hansard of 7 April, when the hon. member spoke on the same matter, one will notice that he has added very little, if anything, to his arguments, and where he said a few times in this House on 7 April, “I understand, I am told, I am given to believe,” he has used those same words again. Therefore he has no first-hand knowledge, no knowledge of that industry. He boasts of having lived and gone to school at Oudtshoorn, but for how many years has he been away? And he knows nothing of what is going on in that industry at the moment. I want to allege that he is not fighting for the interests of the farmers of Oudtshoorn, but for other people. I want to tell him that I know my constituency, I work in it, and I shall fight for the farmers of Oudtshoorn and not for other people.

You must fight for everyone.

Sir, I shall fight for everyone if everyone is honest. The hon. member said here that the policy of the Little Karoo Agricultural Co-operative was absolute nonsense, but I want to tell him that if anyone has ever spoken absolute nonsense in this House, he has done so this morning. I should like to refer him and the whole House to a very big meeting which was held on 22 April, at which approximately 300 ostrich farmers assembled and where the chairman of the board of directors as well as the executive of the co-operative was present to reply to all questions.

And you could not get a motion of confidence.

Now the hon. member for Walmer goes about saying that they could not get a motion of confidence. Sir, this was not a political meeting which was held and it was not necessary to ask for a motion of confidence. The hon. member also has the cutting from the Oudtshoorn Courantof 22 April with him, and I should very much like to read to him what the newspaper writes—

And this the hon. member made the subject of his speech this morning, but 300 ostrich farmers met and the chairman of the board of directors was present, other directors were present and the executive was present, and here is an impartial report in the newspaper which says that no question were asked concerning the marketing of skins. But I shall proceed to say what it was about.

Flay him.

It says—

Now the hon. member tries to give out that the marketing of skins by this co-operative is totally wrong. The hon. member has repeated the statement he made on 7 April, that there are 50 000 skins in stock, but he knows that this is not so.

You say how many skins there are. You do not know.

Surely the hon. member knows that one cannot disclose these figures in public. Now the hon. member asks how many skins there are. Sir, let us confine ourselves to business principles. [Interjections.] When one owns a business, one will not disclose to anyone outside the business what one has in stock in that business, but now the co-operative is expected to do so. But I want to say to the hon. member that it is because those directors are Afrikaners that he cannot stand them.

Nonsense. The Wool Board does it.

That is what it is about. Because these people do a good job and look after the farmer, they are criticized. Sir, I should very much like, on this occasion this morning, firstly to quote the chairman of the board of directors of that co-operative. In the same newspaper it says—

In other words, the demand for this product is so great that there is a shortage. Then the chairman goes on to say—

This is what the chairman of the board of directors says, and now that hon. member questions the words of this honourable man. This man got up in front of 300 farmers and said the number was not 50 000.

May I ask a question?

No, I am not replying to questions. The chairman of the board of directors goes on to say—

In this way the co-operative is constantly investigating the market, it is constantly experimenting and it is constantly promoting the interests of the farmers. Ten members of the board of directors are active ostrich farmers. Would they act in this way if it were injurious to their own interests? Surely it is completely illogical that one would work against oneself. Day after day, those people see to the interests of the industry.

I should like to go on and to quote from the Oudtshoorn Courant what the general manager said at that important meeting—

And now the words of the general manager—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture whether he is dissatisfied with these figures. When one is able to lay such figures before one’s members, surely the people must be satisfied. I accept that difficulties arise. I meet many of those people and I receive many deputations. I have received some of them during the past month. Those people are very upset about the fact that the hon. member for Walmer spoke on this matter in the House on 7 April. These people proceed from one point of view, and this is that if they have problems and difficulties, they will solve these at Oudtshoorn and they will find answers to their problems there. I should like to quote what the general manager said further. He said—

We must accept that there has been an unprecedented boom in this industry, during which a large number of ostriches were bred and the farmers made use of the facilities which were made available to them. Ostrich leather is an expensive product. When one thinks of the price of shoes and ladies’ handbags, it is quite clear that not everyone can afford them and that the market is quite limited. For this reason there is not really a very great demand for ostrich leather. The hon. member for Walmer spoke of reselling the product. However, it is not clear to me whether he meant the product that has been made from the leather. If this is what he means, I want to tell him that the expert who spoke to him was completely mistaken. This is out of the question, for once the leather has been sold, it has been sold, and the leather dealer can do with it what he likes and he can do with the product what he likes. The hon. member also spoke of appealing to our consulate, but I have never heard of anything of that kind. I do not think that matters are conducted in this way or that this is the policy of the co-operative. The entire speech of the hon. member for Walmer was a repetition, I think, of the speech he made on 7 April, except for the fact that he has now flung a few insults in my direction. His whole speech is based on misrepresentations and false statements and therefore it is a speech no decent person can take any notice of.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear to me that the hon. member for Walmer has tried to ride an ostrich and has fallen off. However, in the few minutes available to me I want to discuss the country’s wheat production and the price of bread. Perhaps I shall be able to show that I know more about this matter than the hon. member for Walmer does about ostrich farming. It is said that the farmer will have to bear and increasing responsibility in the years to come as far as the provision of food for the population is concerned. I am convinced, not only that the farming community has accepted the challenge, but also that they will not let us down. In fact, I am sure that apart from providing food for the population, they will also make an important contribution to the earning of foreign exchange for South Africa. I want to add that in these times of combating inflation, our wheat farmers are definitely willing to make their contribution to the fight against inflation.

However, we must also bear in mind that this part of our farming community is particularly hard hit by the inevitable increase in production costs as a result of the increase in the price of implements, of fertilizer and of labour. Pressure is continually being brought to bear on our wheat farmers to increase the wages of their labourers, and they would very much like to do so. Pressure is also being brought to bear upon them by the increasing cost of financing and the general cost of living. In fact, for the wheat farmers, too, all prices have risen. A forward-looking wheat farmer in the Swartland once told me that they lived well and that they were reasonably well able to meet their obligations, but that he did not know what was to become of their debt. He was implying that they lived well and that they could get along, but that they were actually unable to do anything about redeeming capital debt. If we bear in mind that every 25 or 30 years a new generation of farmers has to take over from the older generation, this certainly expresses some concern on the part of our wheat farmers.

Since we should like to encourage wheat production and since we cannot afford to import wheat in these times, I want to take the opportunity of addressing a plea to the hon. the Minister, not only for the wheat price to be reviewed—this is done from year to year—but also for a realistic wheat price to be determined, a realistic wheat price which will ensure the survival of our wheat farmers and which will also serve as an encouragement to produce more and more wheat and to provide in a very urgent and growing need.

In addition, there is the important and unavoidable problem that a realistic wheat price and a low bread price are almost irreconcilable. We have always tried to combine them, but these are two things which are almost irreconcilable, and the question is whether there is anything we can do about it. I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister and the Government to change radically the subsidy on bread. An amount of R90 million is appropriated for this particular subsidy in terms of the present budget. We are grateful and glad that bread is available at an extremely reasonable price. In fact, we are all aware of the fact that bread has always been regarded as the staple food of the poor section of our population. Therefore we are glad that they are able to obtain bread at a low price.

If one looks at the comparative figures, one is struck by the fact that bread is cheaper in South Africa than in almost any country in the world. On the other hand, if one looks at the consumption of bread, one notices that the consumption of white bread amounts to 68,64% of the total consumption; in other words, more than two-thirds of the bread eaten by our population is white bread, and 31,36% is brown bread or wholewheat bread. This points to completely wrong eating habits in connection with bread. What is more, these habits are not only completely wrong; they also have an adverse effect on the health standards of our nation. In other words, if we continue subsidizing bread as we are doing at the moment and if we enable people—especially the lower-income group—to eat white bread instead of brown bread, we are at the same time subsidizing wrong eating habits, a wrong utilization of good food. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Government drastically to review the subsidy on bread—the subsidy on brown bread and wholewheat bread must remain as it is and the present price of brown bread must be retained. However, we should allow the price of white bread to be drastically increased; in other words, we should abolish the subsidy on it. When one talks to our medical practitioners, they say that in our hospitals, especially here in the Peninsula, where there is a big Coloured population, there are large numbers of patients who are nothing but white bread patients. The days are past when every house used to have its vegetable garden from which the diet could be supplemented, and for many people and families this has led to a diet of white bread, Coca-Cola and canned food. For some it is limited to white bread and Coca-Cola. Experts say that brown bread gives you more protein value than beef for the same amount of money. In other words, if one buys 50 cents’ worth of brown bread—i.e. four or five loaves—as against 50 cents’ worth of red meat, the 50 cents spent on brown bread has been better spent in terms of the protein value obtained for one’s money.

The price of meat is too high.

I do not begrudge anyone the enjoyment of a piece of red meat, but I just want to emphasize that people who say they cannot afford red meat have no excuse for being undernourished and suffering from all kinds of diseases. The prayer of prayers teaches us to say: “Give us today our daily bread. ” I do not mean to say that this excludes meat, but bread is specifically mentioned because it has been such an important form of food all through the centuries. However, we disregard these simple facts. Consequently I want to emphasize these facts and to advocate that our Government should consider these facts so that we may lay fresh emphasis on the value of brown bread in these times of inflation, in these times of financial difficulty, and so that we may encourage our population to eat brown bread instead of white bread. My plea is that the consumption of white bread should be discouraged by drastically increasing its price.

By doing this, the Government will be able to pay the wheat farmer a more realistic price for wheat without necessarily causing a rise in the cost of bread. I should like the hon. the Minister to use that money for encouraging the wheat farmer, so that our wheat may even earn us some exchange on the foreign market. This seems to me to be such a reasonable and such a logical thing to do. Therefore I commend this matter to the hon. the Minister. He can consult the hon. member for Fauresmith and he will confirm that it will have a beneficial effect, from the viewpoint of nutrition as well as health. The provinces, by which the medical services are provided, will also save money because there will be fewer patients with all kinds of complaints—and quite serious complaints caused by vitamin deficiencies arising from their consumption of white bread.

Mr. Chairman, in the one or two minutes at my disposal I would like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister. He must please give serious consideration to the question of weather modification in South Africa. At the present time we are having bountiful rains and the agricultural industry is in tip-top shape. The day will come, however, as sure as I am speaking here to the hon. the Minister, when droughts will recur. When that time comes we should, in my opinion, scientifically be in a position to modify the weather to such an extent that many of the areas that are subject to serious drought can be saved …

You can forget about that.

The fact that there is an inadequate amount of moisture available, either in the form of rainfall or in the form of irrigation water often entails great losses to the country especially as far as agriculture is concerned. The important point, in my estimation, is that there is a great deal of scientific investigation being conducted overseas at this time.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, there is great optimism in the Republic, generally speaking, about the ability of the agricultural industry to keep providing indefinitely for the food requirements of our population. Now the question arises whether this optimism is justified. From a superficial point of view, one could reply in the affirmative, because the farming community has distinguished itself in the past and has achieved great success with its limited means of production and in spite of capricious climatic conditions. In this connection I just want to refer to one figure. If one looks at the volume of agricultural production between the years 1960 and 1973, one finds that it increased by 80% during that period, while the volume of agricultural exports increased by 76% over the same period. However, it is understandable that this optimistic graph cannot be seen in isolation. Upon further analysis, one finds that in actual fact, the growth rate in the agricultural industry is not keeping pace with the growth rate in the other economic sectors of the Republic. In this way, for example, the contribution made by agriculture to the gross national product is declining. In 1972, the contribution of agriculture was 9,9%, in 1973 it was 8,1%, in 1974 it was 7,8%, and in 1975 it was approximately 7%. If we look at projections of expected agricultural production in the Republic and we weigh these against the tremendous increase in the population, we see that in actual fact there is no reason for this optimism. Projections show, for example, that in 1985, the Republic will already have an annual shortage of almost 2 million tons of grain, as well as considerable shortages of root-crops, legumes and oil-plant crops. Furthermore, it is estimated that the grain shortage will amount to approximately 7¼million tons by the end of the century. Almost 2 million tons of fruit and vegetables will then have to be imported to meet the local needs. We also know, of course, that we already have to import red meat at the moment to meet the local needs. Within the next 25 years, therefore, our agricultural industry will have to double its production.

Good speeches have been made during this debate, indicating which methods should be used in order to increase production. I should like to devote the time available to me to the question of the availability of land. Boundaries were drawn in this House for the various homelands last year. We would do well to consider what the result of this will be. In terms of those decisions which were taken last year and in preceding years as well, certain Black spots as well as badly situated scheduled and released areas were allocated to the White Republic. We know that those decisions also meant that highly productive White agricultural land was allocated to the homelands.

In my own constituency, there is almost 200 000 ha which will be made available for White use in the future. I refer to my own constituency, but this will probably be applicable to a greater or lesser extent in other parts of the Republic as well. I should like to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention to these areas in particular. Of the 200 000 ha in my constituency, by far the greater part is very well suited for agricultural purposes. There are also certain parts concerning which there is uncertainty as to whether they are in fact suited for agricultural production. I suppose that these areas will be investigated by the experts of the hon. the Minister’s department. Then there are other parts which are definitely not suitable for agricultural purposes, but which can be used for nature conservation and for the protection of wild-life. I want to request the hon. the Minister to ensure that when his department eventually has all this land available to it, those parts which can be used for agricultural production will in fact be allocated and used for that purpose, and that it will not be used for other purposes. I draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this because I know that the land has already been claimed for many purposes. We are all aware of the increasing population and we recognize the need for greater agricultural production. I am confident that the hon. the Minister will ensure that this policy is followed.

I have also mentioned the land which will not be suitable for agricultural production. One such area in my constituency extends from Sordwana Bay and borders on existing wild-life and nature reserves falling under the control of the Natal Parks Board. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his favourable consideration to any request for the incorporation of such areas into the existing parks and I also ask him to take a decision in this connection as soon as possible. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the need for enlarging the existing parks. I fully agree with him, provided that such a step does not interfere with the agricultural production. However, there is a good deal of suitable land available for those purposes.

Finally I want to refer to another matter. I want to refer to Sordwana Bay, Mapelane and Cape Vidal. I suppose the names of those places are not familiar to everyone, but they are popular fishing resorts at the moment, especially for ski-boat angling. These places are in the limelight at the moment because of the closing of fishing facilities along the coast of Mozambique. During the debate on the Sport and Recreation Vote last week, hon. members referred once again to the great need that exists for facilities for smaller vessels. The reason why it is not yet possible to provide such facilities is that the necessary funds are not available. I want to request the hon. the Minister to lend a sympathetic ear to any reasonable requests by ski-boat clubs for the allocation of State land. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Eshowe has stated his case so well that I need not pursue that line of reasoning any further. At the end of this debate, one is impressed by the fact that food speaks an international language, a language which is understood equally well by the great powers and the most undeveloped countries. In taking cognizance of the economic and strategic value of food, therefore, it is important that one should also take cognizance of the problems of the food producer. It may be necessary for the consumer and the producer to move much closer to each other. The producer has two basic problems. The first of those two problems is labour and the other one is financing.

As far as labour is concerned, it is true that more and more non-White workers are leaving the farms. The farmer himself is to a large extent responsible for this. In spite of what is so often said—in this hon. House as well—i.e. that the farmer uses only cheap labour on his farm, the opposite is true. Farmers have provided educational facilities to their non-White labourers over the years. At the moment there is a total number of 3 896 schools on farms in South Africa, which are attended by approximately 378 000 Bantu children. In the whole of the Republic of South Africa there are 1 264 000 Bantu children in primary classes; i.e., the rural areas provide educational facilities to approximately 30% of the total number of school-going Bantu children. I believe that this is a very great achievement. However, it has given rise to one of the problems experienced by the farmer. Formerly, as he grew older, the Bantu child first became a shepherd. Gradually he was absorbed into the farming operations until eventually he became a farm labourer.

This is no longer the case today, because of the fact that Bantu children who have gone to school are leaving the farms. For this reason it has become necessary for the farmer to concentrate more and more on mechanization. Now we have the position, unfortunately, that the farming sector already has a very heavy burden of debt. In 1970, the total debt owed by the agricultural sector was R1 343 million. By January 1975 it had risen to R1 838 million.

One is grateful for the credit facilities which are created for farmers. However, I believe that other provision must be made for farmers. It is not true that farmers want to live on subsidies and loans. Farmers want to produce from their own funds, but they cannot. Take the prices of tractors as an example. A tractor which cost R3 667 in 1974 now costs R6 583. This is an increase of 100%. One which cost R15 000 in 1973 now costs R30 000. In the meantime, a depreciation deduction of up to 20% is allowed on these articles for income tax purposes. This is much less than the increase in the prices of the products. If a farmer has a good year and his income is R25 000, for example, then the unmarried farmer pays R11 500 in income tax and the married farmer pays R9 250. This leaves these people with very little cash to invest in the essential mechanical aids of our time. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to negotiate with the hon. the Minister of Finance to see whether the purchase of farming implements cannot be deducted as cash expenditure from that year’s profit. It can be provided that if the implement is sold again, this is to be regarded as income, with the necessary adjustment for depreciation. This will close a loophole and enable the farmer to finance his implements with cash. This is essential, because the farmer’s increasing burden of debt makes it more expensive, not only for him, but also for the producer. If we can enable the farmer to operate more on a cash basis, as he would like to do, this would mean much more to agriculture than subsidies and cheap loans.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express a few thoughts in connection with the idea of White apprentices in agriculture, as raised here by the hon. member for Witwatersberg. I think the hon. member has got hold of a very important idea there, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot give us an indication of whether he is considering it or not. I should very much like a Select Committee of this House to be appointed to go into this matter in greater detail.

†As I see it, from the hon. member’s approach the White participation in agriculture is becoming smaller and smaller, whilst that of the Black man is becoming more important. In the technological age in which we are moving, this is something which works to the detriment of the farming community in many ways, especially in the handling of machinery, etc. One does not have time in a ten-minute speech to deal fully with this matter, because there are also other matters which I wish to deal with. However, it seems to me that the hon. member’s idea comes down to a redirection, a reorientation, of White employment. The hon. member said that White people could be better employed in agriculture on that basis than, for instance, in the “boubedryf of die motorbedryf”. This House has to take cognizance of this matter because, in my opinion, the Black man is far better orientated towards employment in industry, for instance in the building industry and other mechanical work of that sort, than he is for employment in farming. If we are able to find a means of increasing the employment of White people in farming, even if not only on a directional basis, but also actually taking part in the physical work on the farm, then I think it is something which is to be greatly encouraged. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not indicate whether he is considering this matter seriously and whether this House can make a contribution towards it. If it is a question of “vakleerlingskap” then there are certain implications. If one takes a couple of young men on your farm as apprentices, they are bound there for a certain period. Furthermore, they are protected by certain laws. When they have qualified, they have to have a certain marketable and negotiable instrument which guarantees them a certain wage, etc. I do not know whether the hon. member intended that the ordinary apprenticeship laws should apply to them. That would be an altogether new departure in agriculture. However, if one is able to introduce the sort of scheme whereby the participation of White people in agricultural areas is going to be heightened, then I think it will be worthwhile to investigate this further. The Black man will say, as the Zulu says time and again: Mlungu uHulumeni—the White man is the Government. They like to see the White man on the land. We have said it so many times and I do not want to comment on it any further, but the physical presence of the White man in the countryside is a vital factor in the continued control we are going to have to exercise in this country. So I think the hon. member has touched upon something which is very important indeed. I should like to see this House having a chance to make some contribution towards investigating that idea.

I want to talk about the Cedara college of agriculture and the new strains of maize which are being developed there. I hope I have the pronunciation of the word correct, but it is high lysine maize, a variety of maize of which the protein content is much higher than in the maize normally produced in the country. If we are going to feed the Black population better, that part of the population whose staple diet consists of maize, then obviously anything that improves the protein content of maize is highly desirable and has to be pursued with all possible vigour. However, what I am not quite able to establish is whether this is merely a pilot project, whether this scheme is moving out today to production, at what stage this will be given out to commercial growers for propagation so that it can be planted on a large scale and whether there is a chance of hybridization of this seed so that the hybrid vigour we find in so many of our hybrid varieties today can be transferred into the new varieties so as to give us the same kind of yields we have had. Everybody knows that the question of the feeding of our Black population, indeed the whole population, not only of South Africa, but also of Africa, is something of the utmost importance. Protein is the basis of the whole thing. I often wonder why it is that, for instance, the production of beans in this country is so low. Are we not doing research to find out better adapted varieties or a variety which will make this far more available and separate them or make them able to grow in other areas, even in the wetter areas if necessary?

Hon. members have spoken of red meat. Year after year we have postulated for farmers that there is an absolute guaranteed future for red meat production in South Africa. However, I am really beginning to question whether this is in fact the case. In Europe we have already seen the question of the beef mountain where all the meat one likes can be produced, but at costs which make it impossible for anybody to buy the meat. I am quite sure that we are reaching that stage in this country where the costs of the production of red meat are growing so high that the market for red meat is shrinking. We say all the time that as the Black people are paid better wages, the demand for red meat will grow. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has any ideas on this subject. I often wonder whether we are not facing the situation where the market is going to shrink because of the cost involved. In another debate I have already dealt with the question of how long we can continue feeding grain to beef animals to bring them up to the required grading we have in this country. As I have said earlier, in the United States of America the gradings have been adapted. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister to give attention to the matter, so that grading could be adapted so that the same requirement is not demanded in the way of feeding grain to beef animals. I do not think we have reached the same situation here as in other countries where grain is of such vital significance that we cannot afford to feed it to animals, but the world as a whole is rapidly reaching that situation. We should be adapting our ideas.

One of the things which struck me the other day when a prominent British agriculturist came here and visited the college at Cedara, is that there has been a great deal of excellent work done at Cedara on the breeding and improvement of rye grass varieties. The whole of the milk supply of Natal is based on irrigation and rye grass but these are of an annual variety. This person himself cultivates seed and produces a tremendous amount of seed in England. He asked why we were not giving attention to the production of perennial rye grass. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the department has given any attention to this. I know the people of Cedara personally and I have the utmost regard for them. However, it does seem that we have here an interested outside observer, a practical man who does these things on a large scale himself. He said that it was quite within the bounds of possibility for us to produce and breed in South Africa a perennial rye grass which would cut out a great deal of the cost of annual re-establishment of rye grass which, as I have said, forms the absolute base of the whole of the milk industry in the areas of Natal around my constituency. And of course this also affects the cost of production, because if we do not have a continual replanting of rye grass, we can make a significant reduction in the cost of production of milk.

In the last minute I have, I want to say that I noticed the other day that there has been a new approach to the question of taxation on game farming. The Department of Internal Revenue of the hon. the Minister of Finance has adopted a new approach whereby game farmers are being allowed to write off now over a period of three years the estimated value of their stock of game on their farms, because of the point of view that it is too difficult in many instances to establish a precise count. I must say I welcome this. My constituency has several game farmers. I think game farming is something which in the wilder areas up in the Drakensberg could be pursued with greater vigour, and the fact that it has now become easier, in that income tax will not be levied on something which is problematical, will assist this. The fact is that in many cases, if you see the areas where people have to work, it will be extremely difficult indeed to get these accurate counts. I am pleased to see that this concession has been made to game farmers. Whether the hon. the Minister’s department has anything to do with this, I do not know, but I am interested to hear from the Minister whether he had a hand in this move, a move which I welcome on behalf of my people.

Mr. Chairman, we have come to the end of this interesting debate Throughout this debate a message was brought home to all of us, as well as the farming community, the message that effective farming methods and improved production are two of the most important challenges in the agricultural industry.

I should like to dwell for a moment on research and I should just like to point out the value of research, with reference to what happened in the wine industry in the Western Cape, and in that way perhaps leave with our farmers in South Africa the idea of also making a greater contribution towards research. None of us can deny the value of research. We can all enumerate examples of the revolutionary development in the field of agriculture which has taken place as a result of the contributions of the research departments. Whether it is the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the universities, the KWV or whoever it may be that is involved in the agricultural industries, everyone makes a contribution.

Let me refer to one example. However, let me first say that the traditional good wine area in the Boland is of course the Paarl, Wellington, Stellenbosch and Franschhoek area. A few years ago an expert in the wine industry said that the area on the other side of the mountain, the Bree River Valley, could only produce bullrush extract. That was Prof. Perold. A little while after that Dr. Charlie Niehaus, a well-known expert on wines, told the farmers there that they could never produce anything but distilling wine. But then, since 1968, the individual farmers and cooperative cellars of the Bree River Valley have won one championship trophy after another for white wines at the Cape wine show. This was as a result of research by means of which we developed the cold fermentation process for the making of wines, new cultivars, as well as new cellar techniques. These three things revolutionized the wine industry, especially in the area beyond Paarl, Stellenbosch and Wellington.

I want to make the point that whether it is the wine industry, the livestock industry or whatever agricultural industry it may be, we farmers have received valuable information from Agricultural Technical Services, from the scientists at universities, etc., as a result of their research work.

There are still many bottlenecks in the wine industry in the sphere of viticultural technology and the production sphere. Let me mention one or two of these, and then make a suggestion. The hon. the Minister does not have to tell me whether he is going to accept it or not, because he is not the one who has to decide about my suggestion—the farmers outside have to do that—but he can perhaps give us some advice. We still have such problems as the following in the sphere of viticultural technology: To achieve a balanced ratio of distilling wine to good wine production, and to establish shy-bearing varieties in certain areas which, although they yield a smaller harvest as far as weight is concerned, perhaps yield a better price as far as the product itself is concerned. A further bottleneck is the selection, improvement and obtaining of virus-free plainting material of the most necessary commercial cultivars. Other bottlenecks are also experienced by other branches of industry. In past years, the researchers did excellent work. The agriculturist in South Africa has perhaps now reached a stage where he is becoming more involved in research and extension although he does not necessarily undertake it himself. However I want to ask whether a request cannot be made from this House to the 60 000 or 70 000 agriculturists outside to work through the South African Agricultural Union to encourage those engaged in the farming industry to establish a fund which I should like to call the South African Agricultural Union Research Trust Fund. In this way every farmer who has benefited from research over the years—and who can say that he did not benefit, especially in the good years—should contribute R10 or R20 per annum to the trust fund. The fund could be administered by the South African Agricultural Union in collaboration with the hon. the Minister or his department and the interest could be used to help students to do research work at a university. Even if the student were only to remain in the service of agriculture for three or four years after he has completed his studies, he is still not lost for South Africa.

During the past few hours a great deal has been said about the need for increased production in South Africa. A great deal has also been said about the need to inculcate the importance of agriculture in our people. However, agriculture cannot succeed without the researcher and the extension officers; it does not matter whether it is the wine, cattle, sheep, or wool industry. I feel myself called upon to say via the S.A. Agricultural Union: Call up the various farmers’ associations so that a trust fund can be established. We do not always want to be asking the hon. the Minister and the Department of Agriculture for something. However, we do want to be able to tell the hon. the Minister that we have established a trust fund to the value of R1 million so that the interest may be used by the department to help people to be trained in order to do research work in the interests of the industry as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate commenced last Friday, I pointed out that this side of the House would suggest to the hon. the Minister that new ground be broken in the agricultural industry. Every hon. member on this side of the House who participated in the debate, in some way or another made suggestions as to how this could be done. Hon. members on this side of the House also addressed a plea to the hon. the Minister in connection with the 80% of the South African farming population that only produces 20% of the total production. It was suggested to the hon. the Minister that this is the Achilles’s heel of the industry, but that at the same time it was the greatest challenge for the future. I think that every hon. member in the House will agree that if the productivity of the agricultural industry is raised, attention should be concentrated on the 80%. It was also pointed out to the hon. the Minister that the service which has to provide the very necessary agricultural extension to these farmers, is struggling miserably with a shortage of extension officers. Finally, the hon. the Minister was informed that if increasing mechanization were required, we could no longer allow untrained people to work with expensive machinery.

†It is perhaps necessary at this stage to indicate to the hon. the Minister that experts estimate that by the year 2000 we will have approximately 400 000 tractors in this country and 25 000 of these tractors will be operated by men and possibly also women, who have had some training in the operating and maintenance of these machines. The other 375 000 operators would be completely untrained and unqualified. One can also imagine that the type of machines and implements that will be involved, will be mechanical monsters compared with those which farmers are using at the moment. We on this side of the House believe that this is a very serious point because of the high costs involved. We all know that breakdowns of agricultural machinery at peak and crucial hours due to negligence and inefficiency, have a tremendous influence on the productive tempo of the farmer and of a farm. Above all, the unnecessary loss of efficiency caused by faulty supervision and maintenance, will also result in higher production costs and, consequently, a lower profit margin to the producer. That is already happening now. One can only eliminate all these man-made causes of higher production costs by training the labour force, especially our Black people, on a larger and more intensive scale. We know that we have a centre such as the one at Kranmeree where they are training Coloured people. At Potchefstroom there is an institution which will start soon to train Black people in this regard. I believe that this sort of training centre should be increased in number in South Africa.

*There should be no agricultural region in which this type of training centre is not available. The idea is not only to train Black machine operators, but subsequently to obtain foremen and even farm managers from this group of people and in this way give them the necessary training there. As I said, it ought to be taking place in all agricultural regions of South Africa. The hon. member for Witwatersberg, as well as the hon. member for Mooi River expressed good ideas with which I fully agree. However, one cannot go against history and the tendencies of history, namely that we will have to make increasing use of non-Whites in the agricultural industry.

†As a last thought on this point to illustrate the importance of intensive training to meet the needs of intensive mechanized farming, I wish to point out that we have already spent over R1 000 million on farm implements and machinery—i.e. the sum total invested today in farm machinery and implements in this country. We spend between R150 million and R200 million per year on buying new farming equipment and machinery.

*If this is the position, this is a sector of the agricultural industry and an aspect of our production cycle to which we will have to give a great deal of attention. We will even—this is the point which I should like to emphasize with respect to the 80% of the fanners that only provides 20% of the production—have to think more and more in terms of collective farming in South Africa. Recently when the enormous increase in railage was announced, many farmers decided that they would rather buy lorries on a collective or company basis in order to save on railage. What happened then? Recently we found that the provincial administrations announced enormous increases in licence fees. The farmers thought that they would be able to save by buying vehicles on a collective basis but now they find that within one year for example a ten-ton lorry’s licence fees have almost doubled. Therefore what one wanted to save in one sphere, is immediately eliminated in another. However, unless the farmers can buy large, expensive machinery and implements collectively in such a way, I cannot see how we are going to bring down production costs in South Africa because of the money which we have to spend on machinery.

As a result of what I said about the training of White and non-White labour in agriculture, I want to address a plea to the hon. the Minister. He must please use his influence to make more Bantu labour available in the major agricultural areas. I am thinking of the Cape in particular where we are experiencing a labour shortage. I think the farmers are having to struggle too much. At the moment the labour is being enticed away due to the fact that we are trying to keep some groups out of the agricultural industry artifically, while other groups on the other hand may have access to large numbers of Black labourers.

Agricultural production can not only be increased by taking more out of our soil. It has already been mentioned that we can save by eliminating the wastage of food. This is definitely a good approach. The hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that approach. However, much more can be done in South Africa by decreasing the consequences of pests, plagues, livestock diseases, etc. What will a larger percentage of calves and lambs mean to us if 20% of the new arrivals die before they can become productive. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman I shall try to reply as quickly as possible to 50 speeches. However, there are a few speeches on which I shall have to spend a little time. Firstly, I want to come to the hon. member for Newton Park. Last Friday morning he paid tribute to the Wentzel Commission. On my part I, too, wish to thank the members of both sides of the House who served on that commission.

I also want to thank them for the practical report which was brought out. In particular I want to praise the work done by the chairman. I was asked to ensure that the recommendations of the commission were implemented as soon as possible. Of course I have given the interested organizations, such as the control boards and the agricultural unions, the undertaking that I would afford them the opportunity of commenting on the matter. I gave that undertaking to other interested bodies as well. We envisage introducing legislation next year to implement as many of those recommendations as possible. What I agree with is the amalgamation of certain of the boards, and a strengthened Marketing Council. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has already requested the Public Service Commission to make recommendations—as the commission proposed—to increase the numerical strength of the Marketing Council.

The hon. member for Newton Park also referred to the 80% of the farmers who are producing 30% of the country’s food. I seldom use those figures; if possible, I never use them at all. The hon. member asked us to analyse the financial position of this 80% of the farmers. We have the Commission of Inquiry into Rural Reform, and it will be possible for the report of the Commission to be tabled towards the end of the year. Most of that 80% of our farmers are farming on land which is so-called uneconomic land, but they are not asking the Government for a farthing. As far as I am concerned, they are farmers who are more than holding their own. Consider our extensive areas, for example. In the North-Western Cape, in the Northern Transvaal, in Bushmanland and in Namaqualand one finds farmers who have raised their children and sent them to university while all they owned was a piece of land and 600 breeding ewes. This is often all they had. However, they learnt to tighten their belts when the droughts came. What I do not want is that we should cause the idea to arise that that 80% of the farmers is a millstone around our necks; I know the hon. member did not say that, but we must not cause the feeling to arise that a large section of our 78 000 or 79 000 farmers are creating problems for us.

I should also like to refer to what the hon. member had to say about the extension officers and researchers. Several speeches dealt with research and extension. Sir, why was this debate conducted in a friendly and calm spirit? There is only one reason for that, and the reason is that everyone sitting here is worried that the day will come when we in this country do not have food to eat. That is why there was a positive approach to this subject. Every member who rose to speak here, whether or not they differed with me politically, made it apparent that they had only one object, and that was to ensure that we are able to produce enough for 50 million people by the end of this century and still have enough left over to export. Since the matter of extension is being discussed, I want to say that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has the right to be dissatisfied about the position of veterinarians, researchers and extension officers in KwaZulu. But what are we doing to inspire our own children and to tell them that there is no nobler profession than this one? We can consider all the Cabinet Ministers sitting here: Not one of them has as “smart” and good a job as I have.

I say this all the time, for we are producing food for everyone. People can play as hard as they like, but—and I am saying this with regard to the Western Transvaal, the Northern Transvaal and the Western Province, and everyone—they are all done for if their stomachs are empty. One must eat before one can play rugby. This is the general feeling, and this is why I encounter a great deal of sympathy when I ask for money for research and extension. But I repeat the question: Do we tell our children about the good side of agriculture? Do we tell them how important it is? I am thinking for example of the Food Expo. This was the first time we had anything like this in our country. At that exposition we showed the world what food South Africa is producing. I am also thinking of television. When I saw on television how grain sorghum was being sown by plane I was absolutely delighted. We could use this powerful medium to a far greater extent in future to show the child and the city dweller what is being done. The child, for example, should be shown where the milk which he drinks and which he gives to the cat, comes from. He should be told how a calf is reared, of the artificial insemination which only takes place after three years, and that a further nine months have to elapse before any milk can be obtained from that animal. If the child can see this cycle, if he can see how hay is made in the summer to care for the animal in the winter, and if he can also see how the milk has to be conveyed, he will gain a better understanding. Hon. members were quite justified in discussing the big difference in the price. Even the city dwellers keep on talking about more hygiene, however. According to the old price a farmer obtained 14 cents for a litre of milk, while the consumer paid 28 cents. However, we must remember that there are municipal ordinances and provincial regulations stating that no milk may be sold in a container other than a sealed container.

I made appeals in this regard until I was blue in the face. I proposed that the milk, cooled to below 50 degrees, should be conveyed in bulk. Such a bulk tank could then be taken to an approved site in a Bantu area. There the milk can be drawn off. The consumers could then bring their own cans or containers into which the milk can be drawn. It would entail an immense saving. However, I could not succeed in persuading the people to do this. That milk now has to be sold in sealed containers. As a result the cost is pushed up. I am not saying that we should be unhygienic, but matters can really be taken too far. To return to television. I want to say that I am pleased to see what the SABC is doing. They are to an increasing extent showing our people how food is produced, and what a great achievement it is on the part of our farmers to produce so much food.

Finally the hon. member for Newton Park pointed out that our 250 000 tractor drivers are going to number 400 000 by the end of the century. I think it would be an ideal position if we could have only 200 000 tractors by the end of this century. As a result of our research, for example in respect of mechanical weeding methods, biological control—to which the hon. member for Benoni referred—sowing methods employing planes and larger tractors, it will be possible to reduce the number of tractor drivers.

I gave the hon. member for Bethal the assurance that the recommendations of the commission would be implemented as soon as is practicable.

The hon. member for Heilbron raised a very important matter. He said that, with the low prices at which we are making food available, we are not encouraging the homelands and the LBS countries to produce food themselves. He could not have spoken a truer word. We are paying a subsidy of R65 per ton on the wheat which the people in Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana and the Transkei are consuming. That subsidy costs us R90 million per annum. If we go too far with that, we would not be giving the homeland any incentive to produce food themselves in the tremendously fertile areas in the homelands. The people there will say: “We get it from the White man’s country at this great subsidy; why should we then do our utmost on our part?” It was a very important point which the hon. member raised.

I cannot reply to all the points which were raised here. I shall have to confine myself to the most important ideas. The hon. member said that we were subsidizing wheat to such an extent that it is being used as pig’s food in the Western Cape. Hon. members must please remember that we cannot subsidize bread. It is easier to say that white bread should be made more expensive and brown bread cheaper. If the gap between the two is too great, it forces the baker and the miller to change the proportions when they sift. This was what happened during the war. Now, hon. members may ask why flour is subsidized and not bread. Thirty-two per cent of the coarse meal is still being bought by many people in the homelands, and also by many families, for home baking purposes. For example, it is impossible to count the loaves which a small baker beyond Messina bakes, and then pay the subsidy on the bread. That is why the flour is being subsidized. The subsidy on white or sifted coarse meal is R65 per ton. That is where the total of R90 million comes from. Because yellow coarse meal is consequently a little cheaper than yellow maize-meal, there are farmers who prefer to buy yellow coarse meal to feed to their pigs. Therefore, as far as the question of subsidies is concerned, a balance must always be maintained.

As far as the hon. member for King William’s Town is concerned, I want to say that it has been ten years now that Boet van den Heever and I have been in this House together, and on Friday I really gained respect for him. It took a long time but, as hon. members will know, good things are a long time coming. The hon. member raised an important point—I shall not refer to the other matters which he raised. He was dismayed by the subsidies. He was dismayed because we are at present subsidizing broilers by means of inexpensive maize, and were doing so at the expense of red meat. I have referred to this before. I agree with what the hon. member said in this regard. However, the hon. member said that someone should have the power to decide on a specific price. He was very critical of the recommendations of the Wentzel Commission that the Minister should have the final say. However, someone must be prepared to take the “knocks”. It is not possible to keep on passing the buck. Someone has to get the consent of the Minister of Finance to a subsidy. If something has to be subsidized, it is the Government that has to decide what the price of wheat and maize, for example, should be. The hon. member was therefore quite correct when he said that someone should take the decision. When it comes to prices that someone has to be the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, our control board system has been criticized for such a long time. Do you know who the persons are who are opposed to the control board system? It is the private entrepreneur who comes to me and says: “Look, I can export maize at this price.” Hon. members will know that we are, for the fourth year now, exporting maize at a profit, and that we exported maize at a loss during the six years before that. In one specific year the Government had to pay in R16 million to cover a loss on the export of maize. That is why I say to a private entrepreneur: “When maize is being exported at a loss, you are not interested, but the day a profit is being made, you put that profit in your pocket.” The control board, on the other hand, stipulates that everyone exporting maize shall share in the profit if a profit is made. Therefore what the hon. member said about the control boards was quite correct. At present there are 22 such control boards, but I hope to reduce the number to 20. All these control boards together are costing us 0,6% of our total turnover of R2 milliard. In other words, it costs us an aggregate of R13 million per annum.

It is only a proper farmer who advances such arguments. After serving on the commission the hon. member for Bethlehem realized that there were in fact faults, but that they were faults which could be rectified. I want to thank the hon. member for the contribution he made.

†The hon. member for Bryanston expressed his concern about the consumers. The hon. member will realize that it is a difficult problem. I pointed out to housewives that the production cost of fresh milk was 14 cents—that was the old price—and that the consumer was paying 28 cents. Of course, the consumer now pays more than 30 cents.

Some years ago it was decided to abolish the delivery of bread in order to save money. For about three or four weeks housewives were upset about this. Today I live in a flat. I see old and young, everybody going to the café personally to buy his daily bread. Why is it not possible for everybody to buy his milk at the same time and, in that way, save delivery costs? Please, do not tell housewives that I intend abolishing home deliveries of milk. However, ways and means must be found to enable consumers to obtain their foodstuffs at a cheaper price. I believe that home deliveries today are being subsidized by the high prices charged for milk by retailers.

[Inaudible.]

There is a difference. Distributors say there is a difference because they sell coupons which enable them to obtain their cash ahead of time. In this way they, of course, avoid bad debts.

I wish I had ample time to explain why there is such a big gap between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays. I informed Pretoria housewives that any one of them was welcome to obtain a licence to open a vegetable shop in Church Street. Of course, I warned them that any such shop would close its doors within two or three months. Overhead costs, municipal regulations and the like make it absolutely impossible for a small shop to flourish. What is more, there is not much money to be made out of a retail shop which operates on a small scale. Nevertheless, I am pleased to hear from that hon. member that he feels the producer does not always receive enough. I am pleased at his display of sympathy.

The hon. member claims that the consumer should also be represented on the control board. However, somebody must have a majority vote on the control board. The previous Government decided that the producer should have the majority say on the control board. This means that, whether the consumer is represented on the control board or not, the majority say will still be that of the producer. Therefore, I do not believe such a step will be of any assistance.

*The hon. member for Lydenburg referred to a matter to which I shall return at a later stage. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet had quite a mouthful to say. He argued that the restrictive registration of meat producers should be abolished. I agree with many of the things which the hon. member said. In this respect, however, I differ with him. In the end it will inevitably happen that monopolistic conditions will develop in the meat industry. Here we must be very careful, however, particularly with regard to supermarkets and other powerful organizations. We need only observe what is happening at present in the egg industry. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is very conscious of this. There is legislation restricting the production of eggs. The “feed mixers” have, however, entered the industry. The small egg producer no longer has a snowflake’s chance of making a livelihood in this country and competing with those people. Therefore, when we accept that all registrations ought to be unrestricted, I know precisely what is going to happen in the large urban complexes.

On the question of slaughtering in production areas, I agree to a large extent with the hon. member. However, structures have been erected which could become white elephants. I want to refer to the abattoirs at City Deep and at Cato Ridge. These are new abattoirs which have just been built, and which are also being modernized. As I have said previously in person to the hon. member, it is easy to argue that the meat is dispatched per rail in Windhoek, and that the abattoirs should consequently be in Windhoek, from whence the cuts may be conveyed per train in a frozen state. Our factories for the tanning of hides, for the manufacture of motor car seats, for processing of offal, canning factories and so on, are traditionally established in the Cape Peninsula and in the Vaal Triangle. This would mean that those factories would have to be moved to Windhoek. The only part of a slaughter-animal that is thrown away today is the hair from the hide. Even the horns are used for the manufacture of glue. The entire hide is tanned. The entrails and the offal have a market. Nothing is thrown away, not even the stomach contents.

The hon. member for Humansdorp emphasized the important role of co-operatives, and said that flowers and vegetables ought to be marketed on a co-operative basis. This is the ideal situation, and we are working in that direction. The co-ordination of these activities is the task of the new National Marketing Council. The hon. member for Newton Park asked us to build a planning advisory council into the new National Marketing Council. The hon. member for King William’s Town spoke about the amalgamation of boards, a matter which is not all that easy. The hon. member mentioned that the producers pay the levies, and asked why the consumers have representation on the control board while everything was financed by the producers. The hon. member was quite right; I agree with his argument.

The hon. member for Namaqualand again referred to the 80% of the farmers, and in that regard said something of great importance, i.e. that we should enable those farmers to consolidate. Such proposals are in fact emanating from these extensive areas, and when one arrives there, they ask one whether one has seen how the rural areas are becoming depopulated under the régime of the present Government. Agricultural Credit and the Land Bank are there to enable a person to consolidate. But if such consolidation takes place, someone inevitably has to make way. If it is alleged that a person cannot farm on 1 000 ha in Namaqualand and that he must have 2 000 ha, then one farmer has to buy out his neighbour. This is a step taken by the farmer himself because he wants to keep pace with rising cost of living. He wants to cultivate 2 000 ha, because he also wants to drive a second-hand Mercedes, and to be able to do so, he has to buy out his neighbour! I agree with the hon. member that this is economically justifiable, but the consolidation which the hon. member advocated ultimately leads to depopulation.

The hon. member for Parys objected to statutory funds being employed for utilization by the S.A. Agricultural Union. I have already said that these are proposals we are going to consider. However, I want to pause for a moment to consider the dilemma in which we find ourselves in respect of Sampi and the S.A. Agricultural Union. I do not believe there has ever been a person with the same great desire as I have to have the diminishing number of maize farmers of this country speak with one voice. For three years I acted as chairman when these groups met, usually on a Saturday morning in Pretoria while Parliament was in session, when we sometimes sat from 8 o’clock in the morning to 9 o’clock at night discussing how we could eliminate the bottlenecks. Unfortunately there is also a personal element involved here. With last year’s disappointing maize price of R56 per ton, Sampi asked me whether I would agree to have my department show them how we calculated the production costs. I then said that the department would accommodate them and would show them. That night, three weeks after the maize prices had been announced, I heard over the radio that the maize price was going to be revised. When one hears something like that, one’s blood pressure begins to rise, for one had, as it were, taken these people into one’s confidence. Immediately people phone in from all over the place to hear whether it is true that the maize price is going to be revised. Even the S.A. Agricultural Union came to me and asked whether they could not dispose of matters more rapidly now by reducing the number of farmers from 15 000 to 10 000 or to 8 000.

Even at that stage I had a feeling there was a personal element present here which was not going to be easy to rectify. That same evening, when things began to happen, I made it very clear that I would never reproach a Sampi member for anything that became a part of recorded history. I would never reproach anyone who said that he sided with Sampi. They are in the minority it is true, but they are still all my clients, for they are producing food for us. For me it is not a question of playing politics here, for there is no politics in this matter. It was my ideal to get these people together, but what happened afterwards? The one reproached the other and the South African Agricultural Union decided to do precisely what had caused Sampi to decide 10 years ago to form its own organization, and also wanted to establish a specialist organization. The S.A. Agricultural Union then wanted to know from me how I felt about the matter. I said that it was a good opportunity for them to bury the hatchet, for they were now doing what Sampi wanted them to do at the time, i.e. establish a specialist organization. I wanted them to do everything under a blanket organization. However, I could not but stand by the decision of this Government and previous Governments that agriculture would have only one mouthpiece in South Africa. After all, it is stated thus in our legislation, i.e. that the S.A. Agricultural Union is recognized by this Government. Therefore we have no choice. The Government cannot listen to two mouthpieces. It is my task to try to bring these groups together. There are top farmers among the Sampi members, and I still cannot see why the S.A. Agricultural Union can take the initiative—without me—and say that the bottlenecks in the agricultural industry are going to become worse as a result of problems with production costs, etc. Now is the time to amalgamate under one umbrella organization and to forget about the personal elements which have come in between and which are bedevilling matters as soon as one reaches the point of making a success of the negotiations.

The hon. member for Virginia came to me in great dismay. In one of the small newspapers there was a short report that I had allegedly said that the students of Potchefstroom may not attend the Sampi harvest day. This is the kind of thing that is being said. However, I never met those students. In the newspaper it is stated that the students are drawing up a petition. Three or four weeks have already elapsed, and I have still heard nothing about it. All that I can do is to tell the department that they must remember that, if there should be any inquiries, the Government recognizes only the S.A. Agricultural Union, and no other organization. The same applies to the group of farmers who are no longer satisfied with the Wool Growers’ Association. There are members of the Wool Board who are sitting in this House. I have already made many plans to see how we can keep the members of the Wool Grower’s Association together. One is only able to try to co-operate up to a point, in the best interests of the associations.

The S.A. Agricultural Union asked me years ago whether we could not allow farmers to register. When I asked why, they said it was a way of finding funds for the S.A. Agricultural Union. I then wanted to know how one should register a farmer. Is a person who owns a piece of land 5 morgen in extent a farmer? Their reply was that any person who produces food with the object of marketing it, is a farmer. I then wanted to know whether a medical doctor who produces food was also a farmer. Eventually they saw that this was not going to work, and that we could not have a registration system as they have in Rhodesia. Rhodesia has only 6 000 farmers, and consequently it is very much easier for them to have their farmers registered. They do not have all the commodities there which our farmers are producing here. I thought the ideal position would be to obtain financing by means of a levy. However, I do not want to lay a rod in pickle for my own back by financing a body which will in the end drive me into a corner as far as the acquisition of funds is concerned. These things will have to take place when we obtain harmony in the S.A. Agricultural Union so that these matters can be discussed and approved annually. It will be approved annually in the Budget, and I shall still have to have the opportunity of submitting it to the Cabinet. It is true that it is the farmers’ money, but we shall have to change our marketing system in respect of how the funds are to be employed, if we reach such a stage. We shall have to do so in a practical way, and not do things that are conducive to disruption or create problems for ourselves in future.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South mentioned something similar in respect of what I said about financing the S.A. Agricultural Union. As I have said, we are investigating the matter. The hon. member said that the final decision should not rest with the Minister, but with a Cabinet committee of five. This will never be altered. It is not only the Cabinet committee of five which decides on the prices. It first passes through the national Marketing Council, through the control board, and then through the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. They bring it to me and I take it to the Cabinet committee of five. If they cannot come to a decision it is taken to the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council. It then goes back to the Cabinet. To get a few rand of subsidy out of some of our Ministers … [Interjections.] One must be able to hold one’s own to succeed in doing that. The hon. member can rest assured that the decision on prices will never be left to the Minister of Agriculture himself alone.

*The hon. member referred to the position in respect of veterinary surgeons. I want to point out that we are already in the process of doubling the number of students at Onderstepoort. In the legislation on Bantu training the Minister of Bantu Administration told us what he wanted to do in respect of the training of veterinary surgeons for Bantu.

The hon. member also said that we should cancel the restricted registration of fresh milk distributors, regardless of whether there were four or fourteen distributors. Let us take Pretoria as an example. Initially there were 26 distributors of milk. Pasteurization was gradually introduced, and we saw that costs were too high. In one block of flats a delivery man from Melba, with his milk bottles in a basket, is closely followed by a delivery man from Pretoria United Dairies. There are many such examples. This is why we introduced zoning and said that the people living in Sunnyside could buy milk only from PUD. We did this to cut costs. A person cannot install milk pasteurizing equipment if he does not process 50 000 litres of milk to cut down on his overheads in that way. If one were to allow everyone to distribute milk freely, and eventually there were 24 distributors again, there are going to be problems. For example people add water to their milk because they are not making a profit. The costs are too high. They then produce cost statistics and say that their profit margin is too small. Recently we increased the distribution price by 0,4 cent per litre. The auditors went into the matter and found that they should have received 0,7 cents per litre. But we only allowed them 0,4 cents per litre. This was done precisely in order to try to keep milk as cheap as possible. The hon. member is shaking his head. I do not think he quite understands it.

I do not think the hon. the Minister understood what I said properly. But we can discuss it again later.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to uht milk. The price of uht milk is now over 32 cents a litre, but it is milk not only from fresh milk dairies; it is also industrial milk, and there we have a problem. The health authorities say you take kraal milk, not milk in a registered dairy, to a factory and then you make it uht milk. It is a thing for the future. It is a thing for the man who cannot afford a fridge. However, we are paying attention to this and, as I say, if we can get the two boards combined into one, then uht milk can get the attention it should have.

*The hon. member for Malmesbury referred to the tremendous giants which were developing in the liquor trade. I agree with him completely. The hon. member for Kimberley North discussed the use of planes for fighting veld fires. Forestry has already made an investigation. To obtain a fleet of planes which will function effectively is going to cost millions of rands, and at the moment we do not have that kind of money. However, I am pleased the hon. member brought it to our attention. It is a very good plan which the hon. member has, but it is simply not practical. We do not have the money, and the dry years will come, and if those few dams which do exist are pumped dry to supply the aircraft the farmers will say that we must pay a subsidy on cattle watering points. Therefore one should be rather careful.

The hon. member for Albany almost broke my heart on Friday. You know, Sir, he discussed the Bushman River mouth seven years ago, and I subsequently told the department that if we did not have a reason to clean up the Bushman River mouth, whether we could help him simply for the sake of his courteousness. I want to thank the hon. member for his approach to agriculture, and for the way in which he works with our people in the department. We are prepared to help such a man as much as we can.

The hon. member then referred to the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit combined into one. We now have a committee of all financing organizations in agriculture—the commercial banks, insurance companies—under the chairmanship of Mr. Retief, the chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board, which is going into all these aspects. It is not practical to amalgamate the Land Bank, with its financing of grain silos, of long-term loans for control boards, of co-operatives, into this type of assistance rendered by Agricultural Credit. The Land Bank falls under the Minister of Finance, but our co-operation is of such a nature that I think the hon. member may rest assured in regard to this matter.

What is the possibility of an investment …

These are things which can be investigated in respect of the interest rate and whether it will be attractive enough.

The hon. member for Omaruru mentioned the bottlenecks in the meat industry and requested that the Meat Board should have more money available for publicity. I know the Meat Board is dissatisfied because I do not want to approve their publicity budget. We still have to discuss the matter, but to ask me to approve R100 000 for publicity and I cannot buy meat whenever I wanted, is not going to work. I shall approve that publicity, but there are other commodities like broilers. Tonight when I get to Sea Point at 11.30 I find flickering lights and “Kentucky Fried Chicken”, “Chicken Den”, raw chickens or roast chickens. But the butcheries are closed. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Omaruru also discussed rebates on the conveyance of livestock. We do not have that money at the moment. I have mentioned it before to the hon. member, and I therefore do not want to mention it here, that we are considering the adjustment of the price of meat, we are looking into this industry, especially as far as South West Africa is concerned, for we do not want to hurt them.

The hon. member for Winburg referred to the gap between the consumer price and the producer price, and also referred to food that is wasted.

†Then there is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He spoke about the immense co-operation among farmers apart from a small minority group among the wool farmers. I am so glad the hon. member said that, because if there is something wrong with the wool organization, we should rectify it. Let us get a sound and healthy wool organization instead of having a split. I fully agree with the hon. member.

*The hon. member for Prieska must remember that the agreement which was entered into on the international level entails that the country is internationally committed as far as the use of DDT is concerned. If it is established that a country is using DDT, it is deleted from the list of export countries. The week before last the department convened a meeting with the North-West Agricultural Union. At that meeting it was spelled out to the farmers in detail what problems would be created if DDT and BHC were to be reintroduced, and the farmers agreed.

The hon. member for Benoni referred to new methods to which attention should be given, and to preparations which should be more effective, such as systemic preparations for sheep. This is, however, research work that has to be done, but it is also important to apply biological control. I requested the department on a previous occasion to pay attention to this matter, for it is tragic to see a sheep being bitten to death by mosquitoes, and attention will have to be given to this matter in future.

The hon. member for Prieska referred to Gouws preparation. There are no longer any firms that want to manufacture Gouws preparation. They say the farmers no longer buy it. Gouws preparation contains arsenic, or if he produces a prescription for Gouws preparation, which contains arsenic, he can take it to the chemist where the preparation can be dispensed. The prescription can therefore be obtained from a veterinarian.

The hon. member for Karas paid tribute to the agricultural leaders, as well as to those who devote their lives to the service of agriculture. I thank the hon. member for doing so.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Benoni, except on one point, i.e. the bacteriologic laboratory at Kimberley. I want to say straight away that this would be an ideal situation, but that the department has neither the staff nor the money. One will have to continue to make use of the services of Onderstepoort. However, the department has certain steps in mind with a view to the development, but at present money is not available.

The hon. member for Somerset East referred to a trial plot for the Great Fish River Valley. The Great Fish River Valley is in fact divided into three parts. The lower part is the warmer area where citrus trees are cultivated, and in the upper area lucerne is grown. However, the hon. member wants a separate plot for the Fish River, but it appears that Cradock already has such a plot. But I shall discuss this matter further with the hon. member, and since the hon. member for Cradock did not have a turn to speak, I want to suggest that the matter should, provisionally, be left at that. The hon. member also discussed the cultivation of sugar cane in the Sundays River Valley. But there is a protracted procedure in regard to such a request, for the hon. member for Lydenburg has already addressed a similar request. It appeared, inter alia, that the Sugar Association had to be consulted. Moreover, it costs R25 million today to build a sugar mill. But further negotiations in regard to the matter can be held. It is no use simply planting the sugar cane. One must have the capital to establish the sugar mill, and the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs will also have to be consulted.

The hon. member for Standerton referred to the amalgamation of the two boards. As a man from the Eastern Transvaal, he is a practical person, with a good head on his shoulders. I want to assure him that my department is investigating the matter.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South requested that the price of brown bread be reduced, and the price of white bread increased. However, if the gap is too great, and the price of white bread is increased to 20 cents, while the price of brown bread is kept at 13 cents …

No. The price of brown bread should be reduced to ten cents.

If that had to be the difference in price, I could give the hon. member the assurance that people would sift the meal in altered proportions, and this would entail that unsifted coarse meal would be so heavily subsidized that it would be cheaper than yellow maize meal. It is a difficult matter. The hon. member does not want the basic foodstuffs to become more expensive, but he also wants the farmer to receive a good price for his product. Therefore the hon. member speaks the same language I do, but to implement these matters in practice is not all that easy.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South discussed the production of eggs. Eggs are the product which have shown the lowest increase. The legislation relating to 10 000 laying hens, did not work, however, and the hon. member said that if amendments have to be proposed, he shall help us. However, the production has to be greater than the consumption and the consumption of eggs has increased tremendously. However, the production of eggs has become so efficient in our country that in spite of a cost increase of 73%, the price increase for the producer has been less than 40% over the past five years. This is proof of what efficiency can do for this industry.

The hon. member for Smithfield referred to the Stud Book Association. We will introduce a stock improvement Bill in Parliament next year, more or less along the lines of what the hon. member requested.

I can tell the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke that a water withdrawal scheme, with a subsidy, is not all that easy. We are now paying subsidies to cause people to build internal drainage canals. The larger canals will be built by the Department of Water Affairs. To withdraw the water completely and reduce salinization in that way, would not have worked this year. This year more than 50 inches fell in some parts of that area, which traditionally has approximately 22 inches of rain per annum. Even if the land is withdrawn from water irrigation, it would still have happened that five inches of rain fell on that land as the result of a cloud-burst. Consideration can nevertheless be given to the hon. member’s proposals.

The hon. member for Vryburg referred to the abattoir question. I agree with most of the four points he enumerated. Why should a municipality incur the expense of having expensive plans drawn up for the construction of an abattoir, while the Abattoir Commission and the Abattoir Corporation, with their engineers, have plans for an A, B, C, and D type of abattoir? Loxton, for example, will have to spend R15 000 on an abattoir in which 30 sheep per month are slaughtered. That is only one sheep a day. I agree with the hon. member on most of the points which he enumerated in regard to the survey and the determination of the needs. I refer to the example of Kuruman. When the Kuruman abattoir was built, it was said it would become a white elephant. What did the abattoirs in the vicinity do? They closed down. The hon. member for Kuruman can tell hon. members that that abattoir is slaughtering at full capacity. Four or five other towns came forward on their own initiative and said: “Here is an efficient abattoir; we are going to stop slaughtering and are not going to spend any money on it.”

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that we must stop undervaluing the importance of agriculture. The hon. member said that whereas the cost of living rose last year by 17%, food prices rose only by 12,5%. Can I not arrange that the hon. member addresses the Housewives’ League to tell them these figures? If I tell them this, they will never believe me. The hon. member is perfectly correct with regard to those facts.

It is a fate worse than death.

The hon. member said that we must not underestimate the importance of agriculture. I want to thank him for that. He also said that we must investigate the capital outlay of a farmer compared with industry. It is no use having this investigation because it is carried out on a totally different basis. In deciding on the present wheat price, we took the price of a hectare of land at R170 at 7% interest. No industry can survive on that basis. Why did we do this? It is because one cannot compare industry with agriculture. Some farmers inherited their farms, some farmers bought before 1950, some before 1960 at R100 to R150 and even less per hectare and some farmers bought last year at R400 to R450 per hectare. One has to have a happy medium, however. Some farmers are not paying interest; some farmers are paying 12% interest. Therefore we took an average of 7% interest. My problem is the newcomer to agriculture. A new farmer who wishes to start farming today will need R200 000 for an economically viable unit if he wants to plant wheat in the Western Cape. That is one of our problems and the reason why we are so sympathetic when farmers require loans through the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank.

*The hon. member for Fauresmith referred to the B.Sc. (Agric.) student. This is the second or third year running that he has done so. About 300 new students have enrolled at the University of the Orange Free State as a result of this new degree which has been introduced there. The degree was also introduced at the University of Stellenbosch. I can assure the hon. member that he is gradually gaining ground with his argument, for owing to the abolition of the provision that a child has to have mathematics to be able to undergo university training, the university of the Orange Free State has gained 300 students. It is not necessary to have mathematics, one need only know how to work extremely hard, and one must have common sense, for then one is already on the right track.

The hon. member for Meyerton pointed out the importance of food. He sang the praises of half of the agricultural industry when he told us how we can reach Africa through agriculture. The hon. member also referred to Bantu houses, and asked us whether we could not reintroduce the loans. We do not want to announce this too loudly, but now that our money has been used up, the hon. Minister of Finance has agreed to lend us R3 million again. We cannot give a farmer the full quota for which he has previously asked, but he can again borrow R2 000 per house provided he uses R200 for water and R200 for electricity and R2 000 for the house if it is a three-bedroomed house. We can only approve half of what a farmer requests. We hope we will in this way succeed in having another batch of houses built.

The hon. member for Bryanston wanted me to inform him in clear, unequivocal terms what we are going to do in respect of family planning with a view to possible future food shortages. Since I promised to complete my reply in three-quarters of an hour, I cannot, in this short space of time, reply adequately to such a question. Family planning in our country is of course a matter of free choice. What the researchers, extension officers, department and the Minister are doing is simply to ensure that the optimum quantity of food is produced for a growing population, and to see how we can get it to the consumer in the most practical way. I should prefer to reply to the hon. member’s other questions in writing. The hon. member foresaw a food shortage in future. If we are blessed with good rains, however, I do not foresee any future shortages because we have the human material, we have the researchers. We also have the desire to produce, and for that reason I remain optimistic on that score.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg was supported by the hon. member for Mooi River in his remarks on the training of Whites and the possibility that they may be used for a time as apprentices in agriculture. There are many factors which play a role in this question of practical work on farms during the period of university training. If boys can become bricklayers or mechanics and need only work eight hours a day, will they be prepared to work from sunrise until sunset in the summer months? There are various arguments. However the hon. member is correct when he speaks of a young man having the will to become a farmer. An advisory committee in regard to training has been appointed, and this advisory committee will consider the hon. member’s proposals.

The hon. member for Marico referred to the 80% of our farmers about whom I am concerned. However, he also referred to the little red brick house.

That is where I come from.

That is it! That is where our soul was born. I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Marico.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove said vegetable prices increased by 33% last year. There is, however, no control on the price of vegetables. Prices are determined by climatic conditions. At one stage, for a period of six weeks no farmer could lift a single pocket of potatoes in the Transvaal and the Free State. Prices, of course, soared. There was an inadequate supply of potatoes.

*However, the rain caused them to rot because the farmers were unable to enter the lands. The price therefore soared to R4 per bag, and this of course threw the whole index out.

†Last week, on the Epping market, potatoes fetched R1,50 per pocket while production costs are 98 cents per pocket. Prices, as one sees, are continually fluctuating.

The hon. member is quite correct when he says we must have sufficient National Parks. However, the only park that is overcrowded, as far as people are concerned, is the Kruger National Park. In all the other parks, however, one can get as much accommodation, most of the time, as one wants. The Director of Parks asked us to allow him to take options on farms in the Karoo in order to set up an additional park in the Karoo area. We granted him the necessary permission. The hon. member is therefore quite right when he says that we should look to the conservation of our wildlife. That is something we are paying attention to.

*I come now to the hon. member for Vryheid. At the congress we shall once again discuss the question of poultry that has to be slaughtered at abattoirs. I shall then be able to convey more favourable news to the hon. member than at present. However, I spoke to the hygiene people and said they must not be absurd and tell the housewives that if they want to slaughter four or six chickens and sell them at roadside stalls, they must slaughter those chickens at the abattoir. After all, one does not apply the letter of the law in this way. I am not a jurist, but as a practical person surely one can see that it was not the intention that a housewife should slaughter a few chickens at the abattoir. We said she must simply have a screen door fitted outside of the kitchen door and ensure that there is running water. I have said here before that the little Schoeman children grew up on meat which we slaughtered under a bluegum tree. We slaughtered entire beef carcass in this way, and there is nothing wrong with us. I therefore feel that this kind of thing is being exaggerated. I shall subsequently, therefore, reply to this point in greater detail.

Then new regulations have to be made.

The municipalities took over our hygiene legislation as it stood, in most of these cases it is a municipal problem.

But these are your regulations. They come from your department. [Interjections.]

We shall look into this, Sir.

The hon. member for De Aar asked for extensions to the regional laboratory at Grootfontein. We shall investigate the position. My question is simply whether a student would not say the following: “If I have to take a three year course at Grootfontein I would prefer to go to Bloemfontein.”

If a person does not obtain matriculation exemption, he cannot go to university.

Yes, that is correct. We shall look into it. As I have said, there is a committee which is going into these matters.

The only discordant note was sounded by the hon. member for Walmer. I told the hon. member in April that he should not come here and say to me: “I have been told…,” or " I hear this …” or “I hear that…” He must come forward with the actual facts.

These are the facts.

The hon. member attacked the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. Sir, after he was elected I accompanied the hon. member for Oudtshoorn on three occasions to hold meetings. Last year I attended the annual function of the ostrich farmers. There were more than 300 farmers, and there was not a single farmer who complained about the points the hon. member raised here today. I have told the farmers before that they can phone me at any time of the day or night. They have my telephone number and they have my post box number. To this day I have not yet received a letter from a single ostrich farmer referring to the accusation which the hon. member made here today. He referred to a supply of 50 000 ostrich skins, to the value of R5 million. On behalf of whom was the hon. member speaking? Was he speaking of Issie Barron, or on behalf of the ostrich farmers? That is my question to him. Sir, I do not have the time for a person who speaks on behalf of individuals. If a person speaks on behalf of an individual, who wants to make money out of an industry which belongs to a few hundred ostrich farmers …

There are many people …

Sir, the hon. member never gives me a chance to finish what I am saying. Just let me finish my sentence. I told the hon. member in April already, and I am saying it again now: “Go to those farmers and tell them to write to me.” He must not say this kind of thing: “I hear from this expert that…

They are drawing up a petition.

The hon. member said that in April already. He must bring the petition. But, Sir, I shall leave it at that. I just want to tell the hon. member that he must not come here and tell me that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn does not know what is happening in his constituency and that he is not interested in the ostrich farmers of Oudtshoorn. Those are the words the hon. member used. I just want to tell the hon. member that I shall enjoy holding meetings in Oudtshoorn with his Hansard. But, Sir, I am wasting time now. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Piketberg spoke about the production costs of the wheat farmers and asked for a realistic wheat price. Sir, I am also asking for a realistic price, but there are so many difficulties involved. However, we did succeed in doing one thing, and that was precisely the point which caused the hon. member for Piketberg and other hon. members as well, some concern. I am referring to the question of the replacement of assets. The hon. member for Losberg also referred to this. For example, a farmer has to replace a combine which cost R17 000 two years ago. Today it costs almost R29 000. In our price determination we have not had an item to cover the replacement of assets that wear out quickly. We shall try to introduce this principle as far as the price of wheat is concerned, so that there will no longer be so many of our wheat farmers who leave the industry.

†In the shortest speech he has ever made, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to weather modification. I think it was the best speech he has ever made. I must say, Sir, that I got the message. I shall speak to my colleague in this regard. As the hon. member knows, there are many snags in this connection, but we shall go into the matter.

*The hon. member for Eshowe referred to land in his constituency which ought to be retained and not alienated for other purposes. The provinces, parks boards, etc., are constantly asking for land, but in the case of high potential agricultural land we first consult the MP concerned. In such cases we shall try to retain that land for food production.

The hon. member for Losberg referred to financing. This is the point to which I have just referred in regard to the hon. member for Piketberg.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the question of apprenticeship and also referred to high lycine-content maize. I went, personally, to look at the research which is being carried out in regard to high lycine-content maize in Iowa. It is not yet being commercially cultivated throughout the world. Research is still being carried out in this regard. The production per ha is lower in the case of this maize than in the case of the conventional variety. However, we are exchanging knowledge in this regard with other countries. Cedara and Potchefstroom are engaged in research in this regard. The hon. member also asked why we did not plant more beans. Last year we produced 500 000 bags of beans, of which 82 000 bags have still not been sold.

At what price is it being sold?

At R21 per bag. The yield is an average of four bags per hectare. One cannot compel a farmer to plant a crop which does not fetch a good price. There is a small area in the Eastern Transvaal where beans may be planted. We conducted tests and found for example that when it is too hot the plants shed their blossoms. A great many difficulties are being experienced. Since the time of Dr. Saunders we have constantly been engaged in research with regard to new bean varieties, etc.

The hon. member also asked how long we could keep on using grain to feed animals. Last year we exported two million bags of yellow maize to Japan. It is being used there to feed pigs. The maize is exported at R112 per ton, as against our price of R56 per ton. The approach Japan adopts is that they simply must have meat. The question is how far one can go with this. The day there is famine we shall have to put a stop to this. At present, however, it is a case of our having to do the one thing, and not do the other.

The hon. member for Worcester requested that the S.A. Agricultural Union establish a research trust fund and that the interest be employed to train students. This is a very commendable idea. I shall convey this message to the S.A. Agricultural Union.

The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the beacons of the future. We have come to the end of the debate. Let me, just briefly, refer to a few other little matters. In our country there are farmers who feel uneasy about the future. Production costs, railway rates and the cost of imported goods such as tractors, etc., are all rising. The Government is not in a position to tell the Arabian countries what it wants to pay for oil, or to tell America what it wants to pay for tractors. The Government has no say in this regard, and the costs keep on rising. Let me say that five years ago I held a meeting in Wolmaranstad, together with another member of the House of Assembly because there had been a complete crop failure in that region owing to the drought. Two months ago I held another meeting, together with the Minister of Water Affairs, in the same place because there had been no harvest because the crops had been inundated. There is no two ways about it. Agriculture in South Africa is unpredictable.

When I returned from that meeting the hon. member for Klerksdorp came to see me with a telegram which he had received from a friend of his in Delareyville. The telegram stated that an auction had been held for the Southern Cross Fund at which 60 animals had been sold for R7 000 and that a further 35 animals were to be sold the next week, which would bring the total up to R9 000. This shows the frame of mind of the farmers in that area, farmers who as a result of circumstances beyond their control, had been forced to their knees. When I meet people like that in the rural areas, regardless of their political convictions, I am optimistic about the future.

Finally, I just want to refer to the people who assist me in this task. Today I want to thank all the members who participated in the discussions. In particular I want to express a word of thanks to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for the way in which he has supported me during the past year. I also want to express a word of thanks to my three secretaries and all their officials. If one does not have people to assist you, you can forget about getting your work done. I want to thank Dr. Verbeek, Mr. Piet Steyn and Mr. Fanie van Schalkwyk and their officials for what they are doing to make this task of ours successful. Another person to whom I should like to refer specifically is Mr. Schalk Neethling. When I arrive at my office at half-past seven in the morning, he is already there, and at night we only leave when everyone else has already gone home. In season and out Mr. Conradie and all our other staff have supported us and I want to thank them very sincerely for doing so. Even though we may have a hard time of it in future I believe that with such people at one’s side, one can make a success of such a job.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In terms of Standing Order No. 84, which defines hybrid Bills, I would like your ruling as to whether or not this Bill before us is a hybrid Bill.

It is my belief that this Bill clearly falls under the definition as set out in Standing Order No. 84, and I would like your permission to outline my reasons for this belief and to draw your attention to a precedent in this House, which has led me to believe as I do.

Firstly, I would like to quote Standing Order No. 84, which reads as follows—

In this House last week we debated a motion as to whether certain individuals, who believed that their private interests might be adversely affected by the Bill before us, should be allowed to present their case at the Bar of the House. Those individuals were the representatives of certain particular property owners in the Transkei. I argue that those people are property owners, and that this is the particular category to which those persons belong. This Bill may well adversely affect their private interests as particular persons, as distinct from the private interests of all property owners in the Republic of South Africa. When I talk of property owners, I include all owners of vested interests who could be compensated.

In support of my argument, I would like to quote from the book Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa, by Mr. Ralph Kilpin, a former Clerk of the House of Assembly. I quote from the third edition, page 28, where he defines a hybrid Bill. He defines it as follows—

This measure has clearly been introduced as a measure of public policy, but equally clearly, it may adversely affect the private rights of non-Xhosa property owners in the Transkei. Kilpin concludes that there is nothing arbitrary about the distinctions which have been drawn between public, private and hybrid Bills, and continues—

There is considerable precedent in our Parliament. Decisions given by Speakers in the past serve to show the difficulties which constantly arise in holding the balance evenly between public and private rights. In 1954 a considered ruling by Mr. Speaker Conradie ruled the Natives Resettlement Bill to be a public Bill. He made it clear that the area involved was practically unlimited and that, in view of the large numbers of persons affected, most of whom were unknown and untraceable, it would be quite impossible and impracticable to comply with Standing Orders relating to private Bills.

In this Bill before us the area is substantial, but it is limited to less than one parliamentary constituency. A small number of people are involved, all of whom are traceable, and it is perfectly possible and practicable to comply with the procedure set out in Standing Orders Nos. 85 and 86.

In 1925 Mr. Speaker Jansen ruled that the Sundays River Settlements Administration Bill should be proceeded with as a hybrid Bill. He held that the Bill was one of public policy, but that it might prejudicially affect the water rights of certain private individuals. This Bill before us—like that Bill—is one of public policy, and it certainly might prejudicially affect the rights of certain private individuals. Only if all persons in the category concerned were being uniformly treated could this Bill not be regarded as a hybrid Bill. I submit that the category which we are concerned with, is non-Xhosa property-owners in the Transkei and that all property-owners are not being uniformly treated. The non-Xhosa property-owners may well be placed in a special position because, as non-citizens of an independent Transkei, they may—we are not arguing the merits of the case here—be adversely affected, because they would not have the rights of citizens to put their case to a Transkei Government. I think we would be in error if we regarded non-Xhosa property-owners, in the limited area of the Transkei, to be a category in themselves. To the best of my knowledge, there is no precedent which would define “category” as a racial category. Indeed, there is a common law decision in our law to the effect that all are equal under the law, unless legislation specifically states otherwise.

Another fact that should be considered, is that in 1934 the Vaal River Development Scheme Bill was introduced. Certain clauses provided for the acquisition of land without consent from the owners. The Department of Irrigation was informed that unless these clauses were omitted, the Bill would have to be treated as a hybrid Bill. At the same time, it was suggested that with a view to avoiding the introduction of hybrid Bills, general provision should be made with regard to expropriation of land in cases of this nature. In that case the suggestion was acted upon and separate expropriation legislation was introduced. At this stage I should like to point out that no specific legislation has been introduced to protect the interests of the non-Xhosa property-owners of the Transkei or to enable them to argue their rights to recompense. If such legislation had been introduced, I think it would have been possible to view the nature of this Bill in a different light, but it has not been introduced.

In 1947 the opinion of Mr. Speaker was sought as to whether the Natural Resources Development Bill should be treated as a hybrid Bill. This Bill, inter alia, placed restrictions on owners of large areas of the Orange Free State with retrospective effect. In this instance Mr. Speaker Van Coller ruled that the Bill was not a hybrid Bill, because—and I quote the following—

When he made this ruling, he referred to a comment in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice. It is our submission that this ruling would apply if all property-owners in South Africa were affected or possibly even if all property-owners in the Transkei were affected. However, we are concerned with but a few people in several widely scattered small areas. We are concerned only with the non-Xhosa property-owners in the Transkei, approximately 1 500 in number.

In recent years, Sir, there have been precedents in the British House of Commons which might influence your thinking as our Standing Order with regard to hybrid Bills is virtually identical to theirs. Various Bills involving the nationalization of industrial undertakings such as the railways or the steel industry have been introduced and they have not been regarded as hybrid Bills, in spite of the fact that relatively few shareholders, as a specific category, were involved. I would submit that in each case specific recompense for these shareholders was embodied in that legislation or in other legislation. In the Bill before us, no allowance is made for people who may be adversely affected and no separate legislation has been introduced, giving them a legal right of redress.

It could be argued that the larger public interest could be invoked as a reason for the suspension of Standing Orders with regard to hybrid Bills. I would submit that it would not be difficult to comply with Standing Orders in this instance, and that this should be done if we are to uphold a system which provides a protection of minority rights and which has always been part of the philosophy of our parliamentary system. For this reason, as well as the fact that small numbers of non-Xhosa Transkei property-owners are involved, I submit, Sir, that you should rule this Bill to be a hybrid Bill that would have to be dealt with in accordance with Standing Orders 85 and 86. The whole procedure of our democratic Parliament has been built up over centuries to ensure fair play by providing machinery which enforces a jealous regard for the rights of the individual. The non-Xhosa property owners of the Transkei have the right to be heard through the machinery created in the procedure of this Parliament in regard to hybrid Bills. In this way the principles of democratic justice protecting the idea of private rights and personal freedom could best be served and the finest tradition of our democratic system could be upheld. The result of your ruling, Sir, will have considerable significance for the future.

Order! The question whether the Status of the Transkei Bill should not have been proceeded with as a hybrid Bill has been privately raised with me in general terms, and I have accordingly had an opportunity of considering the matter. The submissions made today have merely enlarged on the aspects which formed the subject of discussion in my Chambers, and I am accordingly able to deal with the matter forthwith.

It has been argued that this Bill may adversely affect the interests of those property owners of the Transkei who under the Bill will not be Transkeian citizens, and will not have the same effect on the property owners of the Republic as a whole, or alternatively, on all the property owners or residents of the Transkei, and that the Bill therefore falls within the ambit of the definition of a hybrid Bill as contained in Standing Order No. 84, which reads as follows—

The hon. member has also referred to the definition of a hybrid Bill as stated in Kilpin’s Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa (3rd ed.) on page 28, namely:

There is no difference between the effect of these definitions as applied in practice, although the wording as embodied in Standing Order No. 84 is closer to the definition laid down by various Speakers of the House of Commons. I refer hon. members to May’s Parliamentary Practice (18th ed.) pages 821-2. The application of either definition will bring us to the same result, but I shall of course confine myself to the wording of the Standing Order as adopted by this House in 1966.

As the Speaker of the House of Commons stated on 24 May 1966, the matter before me is perhaps one of the most difficult and complex points of procedure of the House. However, I am fortunate in that the Standing Order itself and the practice of this House and of the House of Commons make the position in the case of this particular Bill in my opinion quite clear.

The crucial issue is of course whether the property owners in question should by themselves be regarded as constituting a “particular category” for the purpose of the Standing Order. In the light of the past practice of this House and of the House of Commons, I must state immediately that I consider that the expression “particular category” must be interpreted on a restrictive basis. I am strengthened in this view by finding that the Railways Bill of 1921, for example, was not regarded as being hybrid by the Speaker of the House of Commons, despite the fact that it did not apply to all railways, but only to all railways of a particular category. The same principle was applied to other nationalization Bills, such as the Iron and Steel Bills of 1948-’49 and again of 1966 (see H.C. Debates, 1948-’49, Vol. 458, col. 52; 1966-’67, Vol. 732, cols. 1221-3).

In my opinion the “particular category” in this case does in fact consist of the non-Xhosa property owners to whom the hon. member has referred. As the Bill obviously has a uniform effect on the private interests of all the persons falling in that category, Standing Order No. 84 cannot be held to apply, and the Bill is not therefore subject to the rules relating to hybrid Bills.

*The hon. member also referred to several precedents, but I do not want to take up the time of the House by trying to deal with them in detail. I have considered these precedents, but I do not believe that they affect my ruling.

I just want to mention, too, that the question of whether machinery for compensation is or is not embodied in a particular piece of legislation does not necessarily influence the ruling as to whether or not a measure is to be considered hybrid.

Finally, I must point out that, firstly, the Bill actually does not refer to the property owners of the Transkei as such, and that, secondly, there are no provisions in the Bill which in themselves have or may have an adverse effect on the interests of any of the inhabitants of that territory. I could have given my ruling purely on the grounds of these two considerations, but nevertheless I accepted, for the purposes of my ruling, the hon. member’s argument that the interests of some of the inhabitants may in fact be affected.

I regret that I am accordingly unable to uphold the hon. member’s point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In so far as the Transkei is concerned, we are today arriving at the last step in a long process of evolution and it is the dawn of an exceptionally unique day: the day on which South Africa for the first time takes the necessary legal step to relinquish its guardianship over one of its wards by declaring it to be independent.

If we go back a little in history, we will note that, apart from smaller splinter areas towards the end of the 19th century, the following main areas were occupied by various Bantu population groups: Vendaland in the far northern Transvaal by the Venda; portions of the Letaba area by the Tsonga; Sekhukhuneland in the northern and north-eastern Transvaal by the North Sotho and Ndebele groups, Bechuanaland, including portions of the North-West Cape and the western Transvaal, by the Tswana; Basutoland, including Witzieshoek and portions of the northern Transkei by the South Sotho; Swaziland, including areas in Barberton, Piet Retief and Northern Zululand, by the Swazi; Zululand and certain areas in Natal by the Zulu; and the Transkei together with certain portions of the Ciskei, by the Xhosa.

Of these areas, the following Bantu areas were even then clearly defined, namely those of the Xhosa and the Zulu, as well as Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland. The last-mentioned three were at that stage already recognized as separate Bantu areas.

Approximately half of British South Africa as it was in 1909 was effectively occupied by Bantu whilst the other half was occupied by Whites. In the half that was occupied by Bantu, there were very few Whites and the Bantu in the White half then comprised only a floating population of workers.

This territorial division evolved as a result of occurrences amongst the Bantu at the beginning of the 19th century which preceded the great Bantu population movements. The remaining tribes at that time occupied only those portions of the country which satisfied their actual needs, and for this reason the Whites, in their general northwards movement, took occupation of the remaining virtually unoccupied land. It is fundamentally correct to say that South Africa was prior to 1910 basically divided between White and Black—an actuality that evolved from history and which the new State inherited in 1910. On the advent of Union, this pattern of occupation received statutory recognition in that Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland, which at that stage were not included in any of the four colonies, were also not at the time incorporated into the Union, mainly because there was not yet then any clarity as to what the relationship between the Union and recognized wholly Bantu territories should be.

On the foundations of this pattern, which evolved from history, the Union Government by law in 1913 defined and set apart the larger Bantu territories within its borders, as well as the smaller areas and even those occupied by splinter groups, for the benefit of the Bantu, and later, after prolonged investigation and deliberations, made provision by law, in 1936, for the systematic enlargement of the then existing Bantu areas.

The declared purpose which the Union Government, and its predecessors in the territories which the Union comprised, sought to achieve in defining the Bantu areas was, in so doing, to set apart for and together with each of the various Bantu communities the land areas with which it was historically associated, thereby identifying each community with its own territory and ensuring that each community would retain such territory within its borders, as also the smaller areas and even those occupied by splinter groups, for the benefit of the Bantu, and later after prolonged investigations and deliberations, made provision by law in 1936 for the systematic enlargement of the existing Bantu areas.

The declared purpose which the Union Government and its predecessors in the territories from which the Union was comprised, sought in defining the Bantu areas, was in so doing to set apart the land areas with which each of the various Bantu communities was historically associated for them and together with the communities concerned, thereby identifying each community with its own territory and ensuring that each community would retain such territory.

*It is for this reason that legal recognition has been accorded in these territories to the traditional administrative and legal systems of the Bantu. It is particularly important to note how far back in the history of the Union of South Africa we come across this awareness of a separate existence and form of government, peculiar to the Bantu national groups in their own areas. To illustrate this fact, I quote the following: The late General Louis Botha, the then Prime Minister, said during the course of a debate here in 1913—

(Afrikaans Hansard, 1913, cols. 2129, 2132 and 2133).

The late General Smuts—at that time a Minister—said in his oft-quoted Savoy Hotel speech in London in 1917—

(J. C. Smuts: The Greater South Africa, p. 18).

Allow me to quote the following from the election manifesto of our Party for the 1948 election, as issued personally by the late Dr. D. F. Malan—

(Hansard, 1963, col. 2234.)

For this reason, these territories of the various Bantu national groups were not thrown open for the random occupation of Bantu in general, but the particular territories retained their connection with the particular homogenous communities that occupied them in those times. In this way, homelands have been created for the full development and self-determination of the following larger national groups, based on a general cultural and language foundation: The North-Sotho, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa (two) and Zulu as also the South-Sotho. Had this not been the goal, that is to say, if the intention had been merely to set apart land without attempting to consolidate a particular community, then the sustained effort prior to and after Union, aimed in the first place at setting apart Bantu areas, and later even at enlarging them, would have been a senseless act.

The logical consequence of the setting aside of Bantu areas was by implication to set aside White areas. This receives confirmation from the fact that the Bantu labour force which initially served the mining and manufacturing industries was based on the migration of male Bantu from the Bantu territories for negotiated contract periods; these labourers were thus temporarily allowed in the White area with the permission of the Whites.

Practically all the Bantu in the White areas originally came from the Bantu areas of the Union and from the three Protectorates. Their original aim was merely to earn money periodically in order to purchase specific consumer goods which they desired as well as necessities for their dependants in the Bantu territories and, when this desire had been fulfilled, to leave the White areas. This natural arrangement was not only in accordance with the intentions of the Whites, but apparently suited the Bantu and met with their approval.

†Mr. Speaker, with the attainment of independence by the Transkei, we will not see the birth of a new nation. That is something of the past. What will take place, is the coming-of-age of a nation. This must not be seen as the removal of a large group of Black people, a nation, from the larger multi-national community in South Africa. But at the same time it must also not be looked upon as an escape hatch for the White nation from the same multi-national community or diversity of nations. This must be fully accepted on all sides.

We are not dealing here with a process of isolation of either a Black or a White nation, because in isolation we cannot live here as neighbours. In fact, the matter revolves around the consummation of the natural course of development of a Black nation on the pattern followed by nations all over the world, throughout the ages, in attaining self-realization and fulfilment by developing separately. This occurred in Europe and other continents with large States and smaller ones, and this was right and natural; it was accepted by all. Until very recently this still occurred on our own continent of Africa, in fact on our borders and also encircled by our own South African territory and also in the form of comparatively small States. This was also right, also natural, and they were also quite rightly recognized and accepted. Why and in what respect is the same process then wrong when it is now to take place in so far as the Transkei is concerned? Yes, as far as the Transkei is concerned which in many respects is ahead of some of those just referred to? In this process, partition of the land area also takes place, in the sense that the Republic of South Africa gives up portions of its territory to the new Black State. It is in fact the initial putting into practice of the prophetic words of the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd and also of the late Dr. T. E. Dӧnges which I here quote in recollection. Firstly, those of the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, at the time Prime Minister, on 20 May 1959 (Hansard, Vol. 101, col. 6227)—

Why do you not complete the quotation?

On another occasion the late Dr. Verwoerd said (Hansard 1962, Vol. 2, col. 70)—

In regard to the late Dr. T. E. Dӧnges, at the time Minister of Finance, I quote what he said at Robertson on 23 May 1959 (Die Transvaler,25 May 1959)—

In order to indicate how far back in time this idea of partition was already awakening, I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the following words spoken by the late Gen. J. B. M. Hertzog in 1913 (Die Volkstem, 21 January 1913)—

The diversity of national groups here in South Africa, independent or semi-independent, Black and White, and then also the Brown groups and those of Eastern origin, will therefore all, in their diversity, have to continue to live here alongside one another, but in a friendly and tolerant manner, and together, but under control, and interdependent on one another.

For this reason, in this extensive multinational dispensation, we will have to design an organizatory framework, already named a commonwealth, a constellation, a common market, a power bloc, an association, etc. Within this framework the national groups will then have to consult with each other at a comprehensible and orderly procedure whereby the course of action of the people of the national groups concerned, as individuals in their own countries, but, in particular, also in the other man’s country, can be determined.

Such directional guidance on the further pattern of development had already been given almost two decades ago by the then Prime Minister when he declared that the various autonomous Bantu national units, should they demonstrate the potential to develop to this level in due course, would eventually be able to form a commonwealth with White South Africa.

The realization of political autonomy for the Bantu national units, which was hereby foreshadowed, necessitated that all impediments standing in the way of this development be systematically removed.

Seen from this viewpoint, the greatest obstacle was the representation of the Bantu in the highest White authoritative bodies, as this did not stimulate the Bantu to develop their own institutions, in the sense that it kept alive expectations of greater participation in the political institutions of the Whites and promoted the exodus of trained human potential from service within their own community.

*This commonwealth system embodies the principle of systematic emancipation of dependant national groups and territorial units according to the ability of the various groups to govern themselves. Participation in the government of the guardian country cannot form part of the preparation of the subordinate units for the task of self-government. This is clearly evident in the history of the evolution of the British Commonwealth, where the constituent territories which were destined to become autonomous never had direct representation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Participation in this Parliament of ours on the basis of Bantu representation which then applied was therefore a misleading guidepost to the impassable alternative road that had been rejected, and for this reason it was abolished.

During the past two decades a series of steps have been taken to reconfirm, uphold and develop the policy of peaceful coexistence of separate Bantu communities and a separate White community.

The Bantu Authorities Act (1951), the Bantu Education Act (1953), the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act (1959) and especially, as far as present measure is concerned, the Transkei Constitution Act (1963), as well as related administrative steps were all aimed at systematically realizing the goals that the founders of Union as well as this Parliament had basically striven for. There were also other Acts that paved the way for the Transkei and other Bantu homelands. In the implementation of the policy centring around the system of Bantu communities that arose from this, it was possible to build on the firm foundation of the system of self-government, characteristic of the Bantu, a system which is basically democratic and to which the Bantu is very much attached. On the one hand this system confers full executive power upon the tribal head-in-council, but on the other hand it provides the necessary guarantees that this power will be exercised in the interests of and in accordance with the will and desires of the community. Even in cases where Western orientated governmental forms were introduced by the White authority, as in the Transkei and the Ciskei, the traditional structure continued to exist as the actual controlling factor in the life of the Bantu community.

Under the new dispensation, however, the latent power of this traditional Bantu system was harnessed in the development programme for the Bantu community. The authorities are based on the systems peculiar to the Bantu, ranging from the local tribal authority with its limited responsibility to the Legislative Assembly with its far-reaching authority and with all the executive power in the hands of the Bantu nation.

Under the authority system each Bantu nation is to a large degree actively involved in all facets of its community development. For the first time in their history they have seen that the Whites are not begrudging them full freedom for advancement within their own circle, and they realize that it is not the intention of the White Government to withhold the transfer of powers on the grounds that the time is not opportune and the people not yet sufficiently mature to carry more responsibility and to exercise greater powers, but that the White Government has proved that it is its firm intention to prepare them for such increased authority.

For this reason, the new approach has fired their imagination and remarkable results have already been obtained. Of the recognized national units in the Republic, eight are being governed by their own legislative assemblies today and seven of the eight have reached the stage of self-government. The rest are fast approaching self-determination.

The principles which underlie the progress that has so evidently been made, arising from the basic aims of the founders of the Union, can be summarized as follows—

1. (i) Systematic identification of each Bantu national group with its own homeland;
2. (ii) full development opportunities in every walk of life within the particular national unit and homeland;
3. (iii) assistance and guidance to each national unit to enable it systematically to develop its own area into a full-fledged homeland;
4. (iv) full protection of the interests and rights of the Bantu in their homelands and the removal of White interests which have become entrenched there under White control; and
5. (v) creation of a living relationship between the national unit in the homeland and fellow citizens in the White areas.

Today we have reached the stage where we must take the step which will release our first adult protégé from guardianship.

Many things have been said in the past about this South African policy which has so purposefully been pursued by this Party and this Government. Our people and we ourselves have had to endure much abuse and even accusations of dishonesty and unfair criticism. I suppose I am entitled today to turn to our persecutors and to ask: What now of all your accusations of falsehood, dishonesty and pretence in regard to the aims of our policy? However, I know that we shall always have such political quibblers with us and I prefer to lift my eyes to fairer horizons of better co-operation, speedier progress, better understanding and a happier future in which the R.S.A. will be able to work together with the former ward that has become an independent country and a republic like us.

†I now wish to proceed with a discussion of the Bill itself. When independent status is granted to formerly dependent territories, questions are asked not only about the machinery whereby new constitutions can best be brought into being, but also about the manner in which the independent future can irrevocably be sealed off from the dependent past. One of these is the procedure that was adopted on the establishment of Union. In that instance, a foreign Parliament—the British Parliament—passed our constitution for us after the National Convention had approved the South African Constitution in 1909. But to place the independence of the Union beyond any doubt, it was found necessary for the South African Parliament to adopt the Status of the Union Act and the Royal Executive Functions and Seals Act in 1934.

After a thorough study of this aspect, it was decided that, in the case of the Transkei, it would be logical and correct for the Republic of South Africa first to relinquish its sovereignty over the territory and the people of the Transkei and that at the same time the Transkei be empowered to pass its own autochthonous constitution after we have relinquished sovereignty.

It is clear that in this way this Parliament is being requested to relinquish irrevocably its sovereignty over the territory and people concerned. It is an act of sacrificing sovereignty over a territory and the people belonging to that territory. It has as a result that the ceded territory with its people who belong there, will be in precisely the same authoritative position as this Parliament was in relation to the liberated territory prior to the withdrawal of its dominion.

The principle of the autochthonous or indigenous character of the draft Transkei Constitution which is published in the official Gazette of the Transkei, is clearly revealed in the foreword thereto, where it is stated: “We, the people of Transkei, rightfully represented in this Assembly, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.” It is also clearly indicated in clause 3 of the Bill which is now before us, where it is stated—

In subsection (2) it is again stated:

Thereby the last constitutional tie is being severed and a new basic authority created in and for the Transkei.

*The preamble of this Bill is simple and straightforward. It indicates that a desire for independence has been expressed by the Transkei and that the Republic of South Africa has identified itself with that desire.

Clause 1:

The sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa over the territory of the future independent Transkei is being transferred to the Government of the Transkei as a fully sovereign and independent State. It may be said that it would be sufficient to have only subclause (1) in that clause and that even a part of subclause (1) is, in fact, “trite law”. That may be so, but I am convinced that in a document of no mean historical and political importance such as this Bill, there is justification for stating beyond any doubt the political intentions of Parliament—intentions which are obvious to a trained lawyer—in order to make the matter quite clear to the layman and to those who will no doubt seek to minimize what is being done and who will leave no stone unturned to belittle our work. Therefore clearly it is and unequivocably stated in clause 1 that the Republic of South Africa divests itself of all sovereignty over the territory known as the Transkei.

Clause 2:

It is provided herein that any rule of law pertaining to common law, and any law made by this Parliament or the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei which was in force in the Transkei immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, shall remain in force as a rule of law of the Transkei. This provision is of course necessary so that it shall be clear that the Transkei is not becoming independent in a state of lawlessness. It should, however, be noted that such a rule of law remains in force as a rule of law of the Transkei only until repealed by the authority in the Transkei. So there is definitely no question of the Republic’s retaining any legislative authority in the Transkei. Apart from the legislative authority, it is clearly stated that no person or authority in the Republic shall, in his own right, have any executive power in terms of a law which remains in force in the Transkei in terms of this clause.

The provision that executive authority may be exercised if this is agreed upon between the two governments is only intended to make co-operation and the rendering of assistance possible.

Clause 3:

I have already referred to this clause in my discussion of the principle of autochtony. This clause not only empowers the Transkeian Legislative Assembly, as constituted in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, to make a constitution for the Transkei, but to make any law it wishes, even to the effect of transferring the legislative power of the Transkei to a different authority. This provision ensures that the new Constitution of the Republic of Transkei, when accepted according to the rules laid down, will have been made by a body which was properly authorized to do so, and there can be no dispute about the source of the authority to make a constitution. At the same time it will not affect the autochtony of that constitution.

Clause 4:

This clause is intended to provide for the transfer of existing rights and obligations to the Transkei in a way similar to that in which rights and obligations were transferred to the Republic in terms of section 112 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961. It is, however, clearly stated that the Transkei may denounce any such treaty, convention or agreement.

Clause 5:

It must be clear to anyone that with the change in the status of the Transkei, there will be many things which used to be taken for granted but which will not now be able to continue as before. A simple example is that of third party insurance for motor vehicles. Up to and including 26 October 1976, South African motorists travelling through the Transkei will be covered as regards the third party insurance of their vehicles, since the Transkei will remain a part of South Africa up to that date. On 26 October 1976, the Transkei becomes an independent country, and South African third party insurance is normally not valid in foreign countries, unless an agreement has been entered into with the foreign country which ensures mutual recognition of the validity of our respective third party insurance arrangements. An agreement to this effect is being entered into with the Transkei, and this means that the complicated insurance arrangements required for foreign countries will not be necessary. In other words, this type of agreement is concluded to provide for the maintenance of the status quo in regard to the many facilities or services to which citizens have grown accustomed. There are quite a number of agreements which fall into this category, such as those dealing with the South African Railways and Harbours, postal and telecommunication services between the two countries, the supply of electricity by Escom, the continuation of certain survey services and C.S.I.R. projects, the economic development of the Transkei, settlement of people and many others. Copies of all these agreements are available to hon. members. It stands to reason that these services will be rendered at the expense of the departments or institutions concerned, but naturally they will employ as many Transkeian citizens as possible.

The situation is slightly different with regard to educational facilities for the children of citizens of the Republic of South Africa and hospitalization for citizens of the Republic of South Africa in the Transkei, because this will be the responsibility of the Cape Provincial Administration. In so far as Coloureds are concerned, certain arrangements are being made for educational facilities.

Another kind of agreement concluded with the Transkei is one which is necessitated by changed circumstances arising from the independence of the Transkei. This category includes agreements concerning financial assistance to the Transkei and an agreement governing the conditions of the secondment of South African officials to the Transkei. I may mention that these conditions are equally applicable to other African countries to which South African officials have been seconded. There is also the agreement regarding Transkeian citizenship, another in regard to the movement of persons across the common borders, a non-aggression pact and a number of agreements relating to various forms of technical aid. Copies of these can also be made available to hon. members.

For the purpose of clarification I wish to state that land which is still to be bought for consolidation purposes and which should accrue to the Transkei will gradually be bought by the South African Bantu Trust in the usual manner after independence and transferred to the Transkei. An agreement with the Transkei is being concluded in this regard as well.

In the same context it is again emphasized that the White Paper, W.P. C.C. of 1964 will be honoured after independence. Therein the guarantee is given to Whites and Coloureds that the Government of the Republic will safeguard their properties and businesses against any loss should they have to leave the Transkei and that the South African Bantu Trust will purchase their properties and then sell them to Transkeian citizens or concerns. This undertaking has heretofore been complied with and the Government will continue to comply with it after independence. This matter, too, i.e. is covered by an agreement with the Transkei. Should such Whites and Coloureds, however, of their own free will become Transkeian citizens, their South African citizenship will automatically lapse, in accordance with an Act which has been in existence for a long time, and accordingly the said guarantee embodied in the White Paper that has been referred to will also lapse. The Government wants it to be understood that the aforementioned White Paper with its guarantees only applies to Whites and Coloureds with property interests in the Transkei prior to and on the attainment of independence by the Transkei on 26 October 1976.

Since all these agreements will be concluded between the two Governments before the Transkei becomes independent, provision is made for them to remain in force after independence as international treaties, conventions or agreements. In this way the validity of these agreements after independence is placed beyond all doubt. Naturally it will be possible in future to enter into further agreements with the Transkei regarding matters of mutual concern, just as may be done in the case of other independent countries. Clause 5(2) is, in fact, an omnibus clause which confers legal authority upon all government departments, statutory bodies and other official or semi-official bodies which have concluded agreements with the Transkei to act in terms of these agreements outside South Africa, irrespective of whether the legislation governing their activities empowers them to act extra-territorially or not.

†Clause 6:

This clause deals with citizenship.

I want to state immediately that an agreement was also reached at Cabinet level between the Transkei and the Republic in regard to the citizenship provisions—including annexure B of the Bill—and also in regard to the machinery to deal with any question regarding Transkeian citizenship of persons where doubt may exist, namely by means of a joint board.

It is obvious that a new State cannot come into being without citizens, just as a new State cannot come into being without land. The question is: What land and which people will form the new State? Throughout our history there was a definite connection between certain people and certain areas of land, and we not only recognized that connection, but also took steps to preserve that land for its people and to identify the people with their land.

Subsection (1) sets out clearly what I have already stated in my budget Vote, i.e. that the same categories of people who, generally speaking, are now Transkeian citizens will become citizens of the independent Transkei, but that they will then cease to be South African citizens. As I have stated at the time, this happens automatically as far as this legislation of ours is concerned. In terms of the Transkei draft constitution persons with natural and historical ties with the Transkei and who at present are already Transkei citizens, automatically become citizens of the independent Transkei. This excludes the cases where doubt may exist about the identity of persons. If the Transkei should withdraw citizenship from some of the aforementioned citizens they will not become stateless as a result of our actions. [Interjections.]

In subsection (2) provision is made for the cases where doubt may exist in connection with identity, and such cases will be decided on by the joint board, whose decisions will be final.

In subsection (3) the Bill states quite clearly that those citizens of the Transkei resident in the Republic at the commencement of the Act shall not, except with regard to citizenship, forfeit any existing rights, privileges or benefits. Likewise, the citizens of the Transkei resident in the Transkei will, as Transkeians, be perfectly welcome to be here and to work in the Republic within the accepted framework. In this connection I wish to repeat what I have said so often and as recently as during my departmental Vote on 28 April 1976. I now quote the following relevant portions of my speech on that occasion—

Clause 7:

This contains the short title and the date of commencement of the new Act.

*Mr. Speaker, this House has already dealt with a variety of subjects concerning which exisiting legislation has been amended in order to provide the necessary legislative authority for matters specifically pertaining to the independence of the Transkei. Further legislation will yet have to be considered by this House.

The legislation which has already been disposed of includes the measure which will provide for appeals from the Supreme Court of the Transkei to the South African Supreme Court after independence, and the amendment of the Electricity Supply Commission Act, of certain laws relating to Coloured affairs, of the Bantu Trust Act, and of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, to provide for agreements to be entered into with the South African Government and for an enlarged Legislative Assembly of the Transkei.

Measures that still have to be disposed of are the one concerning the financial relations between the Republic of South Africa and the future Republic of the Transkei, and the one in connection with the representation in this Parliament of South African citizens living in the Transkei after independence.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is the culmination of a long evolutionary process. We, and I am sure that this includes the people of the Transkei, are glad that we have come to this, a happy ending. We are also confident that there will be a long and happy association between our two countries to the mutual benefit of two equal and trusted neighbours. We extend our best wishes to the Transkei on the attainment of the highest ideal of a nation, to become an independent State as from 26 October 1976. I wish to add that it is the serious intention of this Government to give all possible assistance to the Transkei in this great and important constitutional step, notwithstanding difficult situations which may arise, and I have no doubt that the Transkeian Government and Legislative Assembly share this determination with us.

The Government is fully aware of various efforts which are still being made in this late hour by certain individuals, organizations and press media to wreck the advent of Transkei independence. In this connection I wish to sound authoritatively a considered and determined warning: After the very long and sometimes difficult, but nevertheless successful process of development which has brought us to this point, the Government will definitely not tolerate such negative obstruction work. We say to them: Refrain from your interfering pressure on the people of the Transkei and your attempts at obstruction in general, because the Government will not allow anybody to divert it from the course it is set upon.

I have no doubt that history will add these present days to the long series of historical days in the development of our country and its peoples. We are witnessing here today the logical outcome of the policy of multinationalism of our Republic of South Africa: the consummation of the inevitable and irreversible passage of our National Party’s constitutional principles and views in regard to the various nations in our midst. We are witnessing here today the confirmation of the earnestness and resoluteness of our National Party concerning its policy, of the sincerity of our endeavours and undertakings concerning the Black nations—yes, everyone is now experiencing the sincerity of our political creed. All of us in South Africa are witnessing the fact that each national group in our multi-national constellation has a destination of its own which, with the help of our Government, can be arrived at in peace. We are also witnessing the fact that idealism can come into its own in politics if it is fired by nationalism and founded on realism. Indeed, this is a day of fulfilment for the National Party in that each nation is able in accordance with our constitutional programme and principles, to realize its ideals if it should wish to do so.

†But for us it is also a day of thankfulness, thankfulness that we, the supporters of the National Party of South Africa who, ourselves, after years of perseverance attained our own highest republican freedom, can now help another nation, the Xhosas of the Transkei, to obtain their ultimate freedom, thankfulness also that this destination has been reached by them in a constitutional manner without a coup d’état, revolution, murder or slaughter.

Just a bit of bullying; that is all.

Thankfulness too for the guidance and blessing of Providence who disposes over the lot of people and nations.

Today is also a day of hope and for visions of the future. We look forward to and cherish the hope that here beside us another autonomous and mature nation will flourish, that we, in due course, supplemented by yet other nations, will have a community of nations here in South Africa which will support and mutually aid one another, because we have here much of common interest and are interdependent of one another, and that we will also have to bear with one another in that we all have our own ways of thinking and acting and are not all alike.

But also for the Whites—and particularly for those sympathizing with the National Party—this grand experience, the independence of the Transkei, and the fulfilment of similar developments with other Bantu nations, should be an inspiring and stirring reality. May it become with us a political passion that will be the pride of everyone who was associated with it and who contributed towards it. It is my fervent wish that with our White nation it will develop into a pulsating urge, an urge which will move us all to the deed, the deed of building nations.

*The proceedings that are about to take place in our parliamentary chambers are of the utmost importance, in fact epoch-making—they will determine the fate of millions of people and various national groups in this country.

As in this introductory speech of mine I have tried not to offend any individual or party present here today, I would like to conclude by expressing the sincere and heartfelt desire that the deliberations here—and later also in the Other Place—will take place on the high level to which our Parliament can rise and that we will adopt this legislation in a spirit of general harmony because such an event will in many ways have a lasting, beneficial effect.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and this hon. House for this opportunity which I have had today, on a day and for a purpose that I shall never be able to forget—an exceptionally important day in the long term of office of our Government, a day on which we can say to one another once again, as I have requested before: “Carry out your task of building nations!”

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great care and interest to the hon. the Minister’s introduction of this measure and I have keenly observed the manner in which his speech was received on the Government benches. I think I can honestly say that I have never in this House witnessed a reception of an important measure so lacking in passion, in enthusiasm, emotion and in urgency as on this occasion. I think it is not without significance that that is in fact the case. I also listened with interest to the hon. the Minister’s attempts—and we have heard them before—to suggest to the House and to the country that this is the unfolding of a policy and a point of view which started way back at about the turn of the century. I can never understand why it is thought necessary to attempt to interpret history in a manner in which it is not capable of being interpreted and to suggest that when Gen. Botha spoke in 1913, when Gen. Smuts spoke in 1917, and when half a dozen other prominent Ministers spoke in succeeding decades, they were foreshadowing what we witness as Nationalist Party policy today. One has only to state that to state an absurdity, and we all know it. When one hears that sort of thing stated, one immediately has doubts about the merits of the policy itself, because if the policy had merits and could stand on its own feet, it would be quite unnecessary for us to go through the contortions of suggesting that the events that led up to the 1936 legislation separated the Bantu areas from ours, when in fact we gave the Bantu indirect representation in this House.

Indirect!

Yes, indirect. The history up to 1936 is the very antithesis of what the hon. the Minister represents it as being. Even up to 1959 leading members of the Nationalist Party—e.g. Dr. Malan and Dr. Verwoerd himself—stated publicly, in this Parliament and elsewhere, that the concept of independence for the Bantu areas was not, and could not be the policy of the Government. [Interjections.] The evidence is there for us all to see, so let us not pretend that what we are witnessing today is the unfolding of a national movement which began in 1910, when it is simply not so. Let the policy stand or fall on its own merits. It is in that light that I wish to discuss this matter today.

I agree with the hon. the Minister that this is an historic day. I also agree with him that he has introduced the Second Reading of one of the most important Bills that has ever come before this House. This is an historic measure not only for the reasons the hon. the Minister gave. There are also other reasons. I believe it is historic because it shows up, in fierce contrast, the difference between the philosophy and policy of the Government and that of the Opposition. It is also historic because for the first time since the landing of Van Riebeeck in South Africa in the 17th century, one sees a move towards a smaller South Africa rather than a greater South Africa. For the first time since then, too, one has an act of State that will bring about a reduction in the sphere of influence of the White man rather than the extension of that sphere of influence.

I find it particularly interesting to be taking part in this debate because I was elected to this House in 1961.

What a pity!

Yes, some may think it a pity. Others, however, may think it an advantage. In the no-confidence debate of 23 January 1962, in the first Parliamentary session I attended, I heard the late Dr. Verwoerd as Prime Minister announce the self-government of the Transkei. I have taken the trouble to read that speech of his once again and to study it. It is a most interesting speech, Sir, and I shall have more to say about it later on this afternoon.

It is fashionable in some quarters—and this was made clear in the hon. the Minister’s speech—to look upon the creation of an independent Transkei as a magnanimous gesture acceding to the demands of a subordinate territory for the recognition of its right to self-determination. There is a tendency to regard, as the hon. the Minister did, the Transkei as a sort of colonial territory which has long clamoured for independence from the metropolitan power, South Africa, and that this request has how, at long last, been graciously acceded to by the metropolitan power, this Parliament, the Nationalist Government. It is exactly the impression which the late Dr. Verwoerd later tried to convey, and it is exactly the impression which the hon. the Minister at great length in his speech attempted to convey this afternoon. An examination of the history of all this, however, presents quite a different picture. The whole exercise, in reality, was the invention of the NP itself, to rid itself and the country of the pressures, political, social and economic, of the Black population or, in this case, a section of it. It was an entirely artificial creation initiated not by the Blacks, but by a section of the Whites for the benefit of the Whites. That is the picture in its true perspective. For a long time this concept was rejected by the Blacks themselves, and in many quarters today it is still rejected by the leaders of the Black community. It was only accepted by some of the Blacks when it was made perfectly clear to them by the Government, and by the various Prime Ministers in particular, that they had no alternative. As the present Prime Minister has so often put it, either they accept separate development and independence or they stay as they are. That is the choice, and it was only when that choice was made absolutely clear that there was an acceptance in some quarters in regard to this principle.

Indeed, Sir, the hon. the Minister referred to the preamble to the Bill. He commended it to the House, and it reads as follows—

I would have put it differently, Sir. I would have put it this way—

That is the true position, Sir. [Interjections.] One has only to look at the speech which I have already referred to, and which I shall come to in a moment, to see that what I am saying is absolutely correct. So, Mr. Speaker, let us not, with all the eloquence of the hon. the Minister, get carried away with the notion that this is something which was initiated by the Black man, which he wants, and which must therefore be granted. Such a notion is simply not in accordance with the facts. The converse is the case. But if there are, as there obviously are, those in this House who doubt my word on this, and my interpretation, then I invite them to go back to the fons et origo of it all, viz. the speech of the late Dr. Verwoerd of 23 January 1962. There they will find, at great length and in the clearest manner set out in that Hansard, what I have just indicated to the House. Nothing is more clear than his explanation, at col. 69 of that report, where he compares a multi-racial State with separate States and where he says that it is inevitable in a multi-racial State, if you have a democratic régime, that there will be domination of Black over White. He says that the only way of avoiding that is to divide the country geographically with a nation attached to each geographical piece. One is then left, in his view, with a predominantly White State which enables one to avoid the domination of Black over White. That is the whole object of the exercise. That is the reason for the implementation of this policy and that is where the Bill we are now dealing with began.

What is your argument?

I would have thought that I had made that perfectly clear. My argument is that this is not a natural development which started in the 19th century, as the hon. the Minister tried to indicate, and which ends up with this Bill today. It is not that. The reason why I am dealing with this concept at some length is that the hon. the Minister devoted half his speech to it today. This was a development which was quite new and had its origin as a post-war development when pressures from the world and in respect of Black Africa began to be felt in South Africa.

Let us present the picture in its true form, and let us deal with it on the basis of facts, not fantasies. [Interjections.] As I have indicated, the late Dr. Verwoerd made it quite clear that the object of his policy was to prevent the domination of the White man by the Black majority. That is what it is all about. That is a perfectly legitimate aim—let me say that at once. It is a perfectly legitimate aim of a political party in South Africa to try to find a system of government that prevents the domination of one race group over another. The UP and the NP have that in common. Both are seeking a machinery of government that will prevent the domination of one race group over another. The PRP do not have that in common with us because they are committed to majority rule. However, I wish to emphasize that it is not sufficient to evolve a system that prevents domination of one group by another unless it also effectively accommodates the legitimate political aspirations of the majority of the people in an acceptable manner, and that applies to both Black and White.

Federation will not do that.

I shall have something to say about federation later on. The hon. gentleman will be astonished to hear how many important Nationalists are thinking in terms of federation. [Interjections.]

I think it is right that we investigate for a moment the basic objections the White man in South Africa has to Black majority rule at this time. It is not the fact that the man is Black that is being objected to. In my view it has nothing to do with race, colour or pigmentation. The White man does not like to be ruled by Whites simply because they happen to have White skins. I want to emphasize that it has nothing to do with race, colour or pigmentation. Rather, it is a question of standards and values in the first instance and a question of the maintenance of identity in the second. The White man in South Africa has no experience of Black rule by South African Blacks, so he looks elsewhere in Africa to get his impressions of that system. When he looks there, he finds things done differently from what he is used to and from what he prefers. Let us look for example at the concept of government. In the majority of African States there is no parliamentary Government such as we believe in here. One finds a one-party autocracy of one kind or another. Look at the question of property. In many African States there is not that respect for private ownership of property which we accept as the norm here in South Africa. Take the rule of law and freedom of the person. In many African States there is not that respect for the rule of law, and there is little acceptance, in many cases, of the principle of freedom of the person, such as we regard as normal here. The same can be said in respect of free speech, the freedom of the Press and the freedom of the courts.

It is not merely a question of which system is right and which is wrong. It is a question of the White man strongly preferring his system and refusing to succumb to any other. This is a perfectly legitimate preference that he makes, and it is a perfectly legitimate point of view that the White man has. The White man has the right to insist that his system be upheld.

What is this debate all about then? This debate concerns the machinery which this Government has chosen to achieve those goals, and the difference between us is on the question of the machinery chosen. Now, let us look at this Bill. It is proposed, on 26 October 1976, to withdraw the authority of the South African Government from the territory of the Transkei. A sovereign Government will then come into being, a Government which will enact its own constitution. This will happen at a time when a large number of White and Coloured South Africans will still be permanently settled in the Transkei, and when an even larger number of Transkeians will still be permanently settled in South Africa.

Let us first look at the position of the Transkeians permanently settled in this country. Their numbers are not exactly known, but they may exceed 1 million. They probably do. The figure frequently given is 1,3 million. Those are Transkeians living and working in South Africa, a great many of them—if not the majority—living here permanently. By this legislation they will automatically lose their South African citizenship and all the rights and obligations that go with that citizenship. Any accommodation that is thereafter extended to them by the South African Government—and the hon. the Minister has indicated certain areas of accommodation which he proposes to implement—will be a concession which can be withdrawn at any time by the South African Government. There is a big difference between concessions and rights as citizens.

I believe it is deplorable that we have to debate this Bill without us having seen half the treaties and agreements which are referred to in the schedule which has been handed to us. Half of them we have never seen. [Interjections.] Where are they? [Interjections.] I have been given a list of treaties and schedules, and I have been given a copy of about half of them. However, the remainder I have not seen and I do not know what is in them. One of them deals apparently with the entry into South Africa of Transkeians who seek work here; a most essential prerequisite in the context of what I am debating. However, we have never seen this. We do not know what its content is, and the hon. the Minister has not referred to it in his speech. [Interjections.] At the same time, those Transkeians will either acquire or have conferred upon them a Transkei an citizenship. The question is whether they are benefiting by this. In my view they do not benefit by this. In the first instance, they are losing rights of citizenship in a large, modern, industrialized State, and they are acquiring that in a much poorer State, lacking most of the attributes of a modern economy. They are forfeiting the following additional rights here: The right to seek a say in the Government of the area in which they live and work, the right to remain in the area as of right, the right to aspire to civic rights here, and the right to property in the area in which they live and work.

What about their political rights?

I shall come to that. They will acquire all these rights and political rights in an area where they do not live and work and where they are unlikely to ever live and work. It should be borne in mind that in many of these cases they are not here out of choice but out of necessity. In simple terms, for the expatriate Transkeian, one takes away his citizenship where it counts and one gives him citizenship where, as far as he is concerned, it does not count. That is what is taking place. I am the first to accept that for the migrant worker from a tribal community, these rights which I have indicated are not at his stage of development of particular significance. However, for a large number of urban Bantu they are of significance and the prospect of loss of these rights is keenly felt; so much so that many urban Bantu would rather have the advantages of living in a sophisticated urban environment with all the economic, social and educational qualities that go with it and be without political rights as at present, than live in a homeland with the full political rights that are promised them there. If they had a choice, very often that would be the preference they would express. Therefore, in respect of the permanently settled urban Black man, the Transkeian who is permanently settled here, this Bill constitutes a major deprivation of rights which we cannot support. I need hardly add that in this issue, judging from recent reports in the Press, reports which the hon. the Minister has not dealt with today, there appears to be a major confrontation developing between the Government of South Africa and the Government of the Transkei.

It is a confrontation which is not without the most undesirable undertones, or overtones. I would have expected—in the light of what I read in the Press this morning and over the weekend—that the hon. the Minister would have said something to enlighten us in this regard. To put it at its least, there appears to be a major misunderstanding of the gravest kind between the hon. the Minister and the Chief Minister of the Transkei in regard to the question of citizenship. To me the law as it appears in the Bill, as read with the Transkei Constitution Act which was passed some years ago, is perfectly clear. Indeed, I said so during the debate on the hon. the Minister’s Vote. Quite clearly, either undertakings have been given which are now misunderstood, or expressions of interpretation of the legal position have been made which are not as I read the law, or they have been misunderstood. Whatever the situation is, public speeches made by the Chief Minister of the Transkei and by another Minister overseas—if the Press reports are to be accepted—are matters of the very gravest concern as to whether or not this system is going to work. I should have thought that the hon. the Minister would, at the very earliest opportunity, have cleared this matter up, but we are without the benefit of any expression of opinion from him in this regard.

One will not solve problems of this kind by pretending that they do not exist. As long as this sort of thing is allowed to exist, it will fester and, in my view, it should be cleared up forthwith. As I have said, this Bill constitutes a deprivation of rights so far as these people are concerned, and we cannot support it.

Let us look at the position of the White and Coloured residents of the Transkei who are South African citizens. Let me say at once that a study of this Bill and of the history that has led up to it reveals a shameful betrayal of the rights of the White and the Coloured citizens of the Transkei. This group of people is to a large extent descended from those who settled in the Transkei when there was no thought whatsoever of it being pushed off into independence. Indeed, at the time, and for generations, it was intended to incorporate areas like the High Commission territories into South Africa. Far from setting nations free, it was intended to incorporate other Black nations under the umbrella of the South African Parliament.

The Union Constitution provided for that.

Indeed, the Union Constitution provided for just that to take place. Motions were moved in this House to bring that into effect. People either grew up in or went to the Transkei in the reasonable and comfortable belief that, as far as their future was concerned, they would be governed by the South African Government for the rest of their lives.

But it is such a bad Government! You are always complaining about it.

The trouble with hon. gentlemen on the other side is that they confuse South Africa with the NP. I did not speak of the National Party Government, but of the South African Government, which is something entirely different.

What do we find? What do we find in the Transkei in so far as the Whites and the Coloureds are concerned? A whole new dispensation is introduced, an invention of this Government, namely the homelands independence doctrine. Why was it introduced? In order to avoid the very thing the Whites and the Coloureds of the Transkei are now being subjected to by this Bill, and that is Black majority rule. The very thing this Government has moved heaven and earth to avoid in respect of itself it now imposes willy-nilly on the Whites and the Coloureds of the Transkei. [Interjections.] That is a fact. Is there to be majority rule in the Transkei or not? [Interjections.] Of course there is and it is expected that the Whites and the Coloureds will live under that rule without adequate safeguards. This is the point I want to make.

The apprehension of the Whites and the Coloureds is not so much in respect of their persons, although one does find that here and there. The apprehension is in respect of their property and their property rights. There people have spent a life-time in building up businesses and property, believing that they would be able to reap the benefit of this in a stable free enterprise society, but what do they find now? They find that they are possessed of largely unsaleable commodities to anybody except the Bantu Trust, and the Bantu Trust will not buy these commodities at the present time. This apprehension for their property is not a fanciful notion of the Transkeian Whites and Coloureds alone. I should like to test the situation against the deeds of this Government itself.

Let us think back to 1974, when a Bill was put through this House by the Government, called the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. What was contained in clause 16 of that measure? This Government took power to guarantee investors in the homelands who sustained losses through any risk which, in the opinion of the Minister, was not an insurable risk and in respect of which, in his opinion, there was no right to claim damages. It passed through this House fairly quietly, but the important factor is that the Government found it necessary, in order to get investment by entrepreneurs in the homelands, to guarantee those entrepreneurs against confiscation or nationalization without adequate compensation; and the Government had to do that because it knew it could not get investment by entrepreneurs in the Reserves unless it passed that Bill through the House. [Interjections.] What I am saying is that the Government itself took the view that the risk of such things happening was sufficiently great to warrant the introduction of legislation into Parliament by itself, even though an adverse view could be taken of the homeland development as a result of that Bill being introduced.

Sir, what are the possibilities facing a property owner in the Transkei at the present time? I am not speaking of present personalities in the Government of the Transkei or of the present régime. Anybody who debates future government on the basis of personalities or the nature of the present régime needs to have his head read. One has to debate it on principle. Now, what are the difficulties which face property owners in the Transkei? Nationalization of property without compensation, exorbitant or discriminatory taxation, refusal to allow money out of the country, the freezing of bank balances or the refusal to allow the owner of property out, or people who are dependent upon him. Those are the risks which are involved and things of this kind have been experienced in Zambia, in Kenya and in Mozambique, and it could happen—I say it could happen—under future régimes in the Transkei. I wish to emphasize that I am not dealing with the present régime or with present personalities. Let us suppose, for example, that the Black People’s Convention were to take office as the result of an election in the Transkei. What would that mean? One need only look at recent Press reports to see what that organization stands for. It stands for a non-racial society with State ownership of land and a collective system of farming, and if you go through their requirements you find that most of those requirements are mouthed by those who run Marxist States in the world today.

But, Sir, I do not want to speculate on this. Again I draw the attention of the House to the Government’s own standards in this regard. What has the Government done in preparation for the passing of this Bill? It has entered into a whole string of treaties and agreements with the Transkeian Government, some of which have been shown to us, and I have some of them here. I have seven of them here, dealing with the maintenance by the Department of Education of certain schools in the Transkei, the generation of electricity and the mandate agreement for Escom, the maintenance of certain public roads in the Transkei, private hospitals and their maintenance by the Cape Administration in the Transkei, the basic position governing the secondment of judges, and the secondment of technical and administrative personnel, just to name some. What safeguards does the Government require of the Transkei in respect of its own personnel? Let us deal with the first one. I am seeking a standard, Sir, by which we can judge the position of the private White citizen, and I accept as the standard what the Government requires for its own employees. Now, what do they require? The Government of the Transkei undertakes to ensure that all staff members who are citizens of the Republic will be allowed to enter and leave the Transkei without let or hindrance. It requires the Government of the Transkei to undertake not to levy any tax on the emoluments paid to that staff. It requires the Government of the Transkei to undertake to accord that staff the right to effect transfers of money from any banking institution in the Transkei to a banking institution outside the Transkei. It requires the Transkeian Government to facilitate the repatriation and ensure the protection of such staff, other persons and dependants in time of civil commotion or other crisis.

What are you trying to prove?

I will tell you in a moment. It is very difficult to knock nails into some of the wooden heads I have to deal with here today. In respect of the supply of electricity, it requires the Transkeian Government to undertake to pay the fair value of any installation taken over by it. I could go on in this manner with all the other agreements which I have read, where similar and even more extensive safeguards are written into the agreements in respect of personnel employed by the Government which it is hoped and expected to introduce into the Transkei. This Government has found it necessary to write into these arrangements protection for its staff and for the property of that staff. All I ask is that exactly the same criteria are written into the law in respect of the private citizens of the Transkei. I ask for no more and no less than the Government has insisted on for its employees.

When I questioned the hon. the Minister the other day he said, as he did again today, in respect of the White and Coloured citizens of the Transkei: “Trust this Government; the Government has given them an undertaking. The Government has given them an undertaking that their property will be safeguarded, and if it is in any way diminished in value, the Government will pay them out. The Government will see them right.” Can this Government be trusted in matters of this kind? [Interjections.] Can it be trusted or are we on this side of the House right in insisting upon a legally enforceable right for these people as opposed to a mere undertaking by the Government?

Let us once again revert to Port St. Johns. Assurances were given by this Government, in writing, by half a dozen Ministers, including a man who subsequently became Prime Minister, that Port St. Johns would maintain its existing status. Exactly the same was said in writing in the clearest and most unambiguous terms in regard to Umzimkulu. When it came to the crunch, what happened? At a wave of the wand all those undertakings were thrown overboard. They were scraps of paper and they were not worth anything at all. In other words, there are people in South Africa today, who in matters of this kind, and I emphasize in matters of this kind, will hear witness to the fact that an undertaking by this Government cannot be relied upon. When it comes to buying out, as in the case of Port St. Johns, when it comes to the use of such little money as is available for that purpose, does the priority go to the widows, the elderly and the sick? No, it goes to the big business friends of the Government whose properties are given priority, unwarranted priority. The entire allocation of funds for the year is expended within the first three months of the year. This is a disreputable episode in the history of this Government and in the history of this country. It is not sufficient, it is not right and it is unfair that the people, the Whites and the Coloureds of the Transkei, should have to rely on a flimsy ground, in respect of their properties, of this kind. What is required, as I have indicated, is legislation guaranteeing the property of these people and the treaty agreements of the kind that I have referred to. However, what they want basically and what they are entitled to is a legally enforceable right against this Government as opposed to a simple promise.

In adopting this method of geographical partition as a device to avoid the problem of majority domination over minorities, the Government has chosen, I believe, the worst of both worlds. It has resulted in the urban Black losing those rights which he valued and in his losing any hope of aspiring to a share in a greater South Africa.

What about political rights in a greater South Africa?

He has the right to aspire to that as well. I am going to deal with that matter in a moment; I am going to deal with it by way of contrast to the fullest extent. It has resulted in the Transkeian White and Coloured on the other hand being subjected to the very domination which the Government objects to, and domination without safeguards.

The question arises whether there is not another way out of this dilemma of the domination of minorities by majorities. I believe that there is, and I have stood for it and have debated it every single year since I came here in 1962. Indeed, the very first major speech that I made on 5 February 1962 in this House was on the very theme that I am developing and which I have developed in this debate. I have suggested that there is another way out of this dilemma. I am going to present it to the House in the following form. Let us accept the Transkei at its present level of constitutional development, where it has what might be described as advanced provincial powers and status. Let us accept it as one of the basic units in that form in a federal structure in which a form of dual citizenship can be retained, a greater South African citizenship and a lesser Transkeian State citizenship.

As is the situation at the moment.

As is the situation at the moment. Let us accept the present Transkeian legislature as the Parliament of a federal unit, a federal State, one of a number making up a South African federation. Let the vital functions of defence, foreign affairs, internal security, Police and central finance remain the prerogative for the time being of this Parliament, which will continue to exercise a regulatory function in terms of our thinking. Let us bring into being a new federal assembly in which each federal unit is represented with a basic representation and with further representation on the basis of its economic contribution, a federal assembly to which this Parliament can gradually transfer its powers subject to the safeguards of the powers that I have already mentioned and which the Leader of the Opposition has called the keys to the safety of the State, and to which special consideration apply. It will be a process of evolution, a process of trial and error, and it will be a process which cannot get out of control. The speed at which the powers of the federal assembly grow and the powers which this Parliament has, diminish, will be as a result of experience, experience by the present and future electorate of the manner in which the various South African Black Parliaments do their work and carry out their responsibilities.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Allow me to finish this. You cannot have a surer guide in human affairs than the experience of the human being himself. That would be the guide to the rate of development according to which these proposals would be advanced.

Are you formulating a new policy?

I am dealing with the policy of the UP exactly as it stands and the hon. member knows it. You would be dealing, in any further evolution of the federal structure, with a known situation and not with an unknown situation such as we are dealing with at the present time. By accepting such a system the fears of the Whites and the Coloureds in areas such as the Transkei would vanish and you would have the Transkei nevertheless exercising wide powers of the self-government. Defence would no longer be the nightmare which I imagine it is going to be, so far as the agreements in this Bill are concerned. Property would be secure and so far as the urban Black is concerned, he would not be obliged to lose his South African citizenship. He would not be obliged to lose his permanence in the urban area and he would exercise political rights at the State level through a new legislature especially set up to deal with the affairs of the urban Blacks, through which there would be similar representation in the federal assembly. In five minutes, with that small exposition of the belief of this party, I have indicated how simple it would be to make the changes that are essential for the future evolution and development of this country.

You must be quite simple to make those changes.

How secure such a system would make both the Republic, for the urban Blacks, and the Transkei for the Whites and the Coloureds. It is ironic that at this time, of all times, a time of apparent fulfilment—to use the concept of the hon. the Minister—so many prominent Nationalists are searching for something else in the constitutional sphere.

Are they still on your benches?

They are searching for further constitutional developments. They are not regarding this Bill as a fulfilment in itself. They tend to regard this as merely a step towards something greater. For those gentlemen separate development is not an answer or the fulfilment of an ideal. It is merely a step on the road to somewhere else. Mr. Schalk Pienaar said as much in the weekend newspapers. [Interjections.] Mr. Wimpie de Klerk has also said as much in the following words—

If that is not a different way of saying what I have been pleading for in the last 10 minutes, language no longer has its meaning. [Interjections.] There is only one way in which these sentiments, espoused by Dr. De Klerk, can be made a reality in the South African context, and that is through the concept of federalism. Because I believe that ultimately that idea will be implemented in South Africa and because, as far as I can judge, this Bill before us illustrates the folly of the Government’s alternative, I cannot but move in respect of the motion before us—

“this day six months”.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have only 20 minutes in which to make my speech and therefore cannot reply to all the arguments of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. However, the more I listened to him, the less strange I found it that the hon. member lost his seat in Zululand. The hon. member said here, inter alia, with reference to passages quoted by the hon. the Minister, that Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts did not mean what they said. I now want to put a question to that hon. member. I quote Gen. Botha—

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana apparently does not understand Dutch very well.

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

No, Sir; I am not going to allow that detribalized Afrikaner to waste my time in this debate. [Interjections.] Sir, what we are experiencing today, is the burial of imperialism and the ideals of imperialism in southern Africa. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana revealed his imperialistic desires and ideals to us when he said: “This is the first move since Van Riebeeck for a smaller South Africa”. He and his predecessors robbed my predecessors of their land by force of arms. They were the imperialists, the appropriators, the colonialists in this country, and therefore they cannot tolerate the idea that there is a nation that is so great, so Christian, so fair and righteous that they can give back another nation’s country without violence. Here we have the great contradiction today. The Afrikaner nation lost its country as a result of violence, and regained it with a cross on a piece of paper. Today we are returning another nation’s country to it, because we are basically not imperialists and colonialists. The Afrikaner was the first to fight against colonialism and imperialism in Africa, and the hon. members on the other side cannot stomach that fact. Therefore the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is heartsore today, for today we are attending the burial of the ideals of the imperialists in southern Africa. We are witnessing the birth of a new Black republic, the fiftieth de facto independent State in Africa. Sir, I am proud to belong to a people and nation which gives another nation its freedom and self-determination without it having been necessary for that nation to fire one shot or commit one murder.

When I listen to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, I cannot but have a certain amount of sympathy for the nations of Africa in their hatred of colonialism. The hon. member referred with contempt to the Transkei and its Government, as well as to the actions and deeds which it will now perpetrate, and what it will do to our officials. He also referred to the military threat, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already referred, and said that it would be “the beginning of the trouble”. If one listens to these contemptuous and derogatory remarks concerning the Transkei and its Government, one cannot but sympathize with those Black people in their hatred of colonialism, because if someone were to speak to me like that, hatred would arise in my heart too. I want to point out to the hon. members of both those parties on the other side of the House that we are holding the pen which will change the history of South Africa irrevocably. When it was their duty to support legislation on Iscor and when it was their duty to fight for a Republic, they fought against it. I want to tell them today: You are allowing an historical opportunity to pass you by. What is more, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—and I want to speak to him as a father—must moderate his language and restrain his attitude. He should rather speak of the Black people in this country with respect and esteem. He should not refer to them in the derogatory way in which he did so this afternoon. For his own political health he must get rid of that imperialistic attitude just as quickly as he can.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to Transkeian citizenship and compared it to South African citizenship. Do you know, Sir, in his entire speech he was begging for confrontation. He spoke of Transkeian citizenship as though it were something inferior in comparison with South African citizenship. He put it as though one were insulting someone by making him a Transkeian citizen and depriving him of his so-called South African citizenship. I want to say that I am proud of my citizenship and that the decent inhabitants of the Transkei are also proud of their citizenship. The hon. member must not curse nationalism. He must not curse one’s love for what is one’s own.

What about the urban Bantu?

It would be better if that hon. member kept quiet, for all he is doing, whenever he opens his mouth, is to reveal his ignorance. I should like to warn hon. members on the other side: They are underestimating Black nationalism; they are underestimating Black consciousness and the pride in their own identity of the Black people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, this is an historic occasion for us in this House. We have now reached a watershed in politics in South Africa. There are two major schools of thought in South Africa. The one is the school of thought on that side of the House, namely the ideal of a nation state, a unitary state, a united South African nation of 25 million people. However, if we look at the facts of South Africa, we see that the South Africa in which we are living, consists of a diversity of peoples. One finds practically every difference which one can find between peoples reflected in South Africa—language, culture, religion, outlook on life, etc. Everyone of these peoples is striving towards self-determination. The problem with which we are faced today, is how to accommodate the aspirations of every people without prejudicing the aspirations of the other peoples. The problem with which we are faced today, is how every people, no matter how small it may be, may retain its sovereignty over itself and its identity with respect to its language, its culture and its religion. This is the question on which we have to decide. Hon. members on the other side see the solution in a unitary state and a sharing of power among the various entities of the South African nation. However, if we look at the facts in Africa—when I refer to the facts in Africa, it is not my intention to disparage the African States—we see that in Africa there are 17 dictatorships and 16 one-party states. We also see that there is no place in Africa for a minority group. According to the recipe in Africa a minority group can only maintain itself if it can do so by force of arms. However, there is no guarantee for the identity, for the sovereignty or the freedom of speech and land-tenure of minority groups in Africa. Africa does not share power. This is the lesson which it teaches. If we take note of what happened in Mozambique, and take the Frelimo Government as an example, we note that there are no Makondes, Nyanjas or Makuas in that Government. Those three ethnic groups in fact form the majority of the population of Mozambique. A minority group is maintaining itself there by force of arms.

If we look at the FNLA in Angola, we note that it consists chiefly of the Bakongo group. The MPLA consists mainly of the Umbundu group, and Unita consists mainly of the Ovumbundi group. We note that all those divisions of power take place along ethnic lines. Power is inclined to follow the route of peoples, to establish itself in homogenous population units.

If we look at the federations of Africa, at the experiments in power-sharing which took place in Africa, we also notice that all those attempts failed. The 1969 Congo-Kinshasa federation, which is now Zaire, failed. The Cameroons were a federation until 1972. This failed. The federation of the eight French colonies on the West Coast of Africa failed. The federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland failed. The federation of the French Sudan—now Mali and Senegal—failed. The federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea is another federation that failed. Fighting is still in progress today. The federation of Senegal and Gambia failed. The federation of Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda failed. Nowhere in Africa is there a single successful federation. Nowhere in Africa do we find that power has been shared. This is the lesson which we must learn. Africa does not share power.

Something else which we dare not overlook, is that ethnic and national differences are of cardinal importance. If we want to learn a lesson today from what happened in Angola and Mozambique, we must take note of what Gen. Spinola wrote in his book Portugal en die Toekoms. I believe that he identified the problem correctly when he said—

This is a nation state. I quote Gen. Spinola further—

Here we have the two most important reasons which Gen. Spinola gives for the failure of the Portuguese policy in Africa, namely the attempt to build a nation state, and the fact that they did not recognize the right to self-determination of the various elements of the population. The Portuguese tried to turn a Shangaan into a Portuguese.

I want to tell the hon. Opposition parties that, no matter how hard they try and no matter what they do, they cannot turn a Xhosa into a White South African. One cannot succeed in this, no matter what one does. [Interjections.] The existence of various peoples is one of God’s acts of creation. [Interjections.] It is an act of creation, although the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is laughing at it. Empty vessels usually make the most noise, especially when they do not understand something.

Who is denying it? I did not think you were so stupid!

We cannot deny that act of creation. We must recognize it and we must recognize the ethnic differences. There is only one policy by means of which we can bring about a dispensation in South Africa in which the rights of minorities can be protected and preserved, in which minority groups, like the Ndebele and other Black minority groups can be placed in a position to preserve their own identity and their sovereignty over themselves. It is by means of the policy of multi-national developement, as it is being applied by this Government and as it is now being applied to the Transkei. I should like to point out that Chief Minister Matanzima of the Transkei has had long experience of self-government. I took the trouble of looking this up and found that there are only eight leaders in Africa who have gained more experience of self-government than the leader of the Transkei has gained since 1963. They are Bourgiba of Tunisia, Sekou Touré of Guinea, Ahidjo of the Cameroons, Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast, Senghor of Senegal, Ould Daddah of Mauritania, Hassan of Morocco and Nyerere of Tanzania. After them Chief Minister Matanzima is the man with the longest experience in Africa.

In addition I want to point out that the Transkei National Independence Party, the governing party at the moment, has accomplished a great achievement by growing since 1963 until finds itself in an unassailable position today. It grew without making use of coercion, intimidation or one-party techniques. The party accomplished this achievement in a democratic way, and I think that this is an exception in Africa. It is a great achievement for this party and I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the Transkei National Independence Party on the fine illustration of democracy which they have provided by building themselves up over so many years, without coercion, to form the strong party which they are today.

In passing I should also like to mention that the Transkei is not a small country at all. Indeed it is entitled in its own right to be recognized as a country. The surface area of the Transkei amounts to 4,5 million ha. Compared to this the area of Swaziland amounts to only 1,7 million ha; Lesotho 3,0 million ha; Burundi 2,7 million ha; and Malawi, which is a little larger, 9,5 million ha. The Transkei is twice as large as Wales and also larger than countries such as Belgium, Israel, Switzerland, Singapore, Mauritius, Trinidad, Gambia, Lebanon, Quatar, the Bahamas, El Salvador, Kuwait and Equatorial Guinea.

If one takes a closer look at the population of the Transkei, one sees that the Transkei has a population of 3 million people. Compared to this hand Botswana has a population of 611 000; Swaziland, 423 000; and Lesotho, 923 000. In other words, these three former protectorates have a total population of 1,9 million, that is less than the population of the Transkei. It is interesting to note that the population of the Transkei is greater than that of Somalia, the Congo, Guinea, Burundi, Niger, Dahomey, Cyprus, Albania, Gabon, Jamaica, Liberia, Luxemburg, Malta and Tonga. The Transkei has a population density of 46% per square km. If one compares this with Britain which has a population density of 211 people per km2 and the Netherlands with 365 people per km2, then the Transkei is still relatively sparsely populated.

From a financial economical point of view, the Transkei is a State in its own right. The gross domestic income of the Transkei for the year 1972-’73 was R407 million. As against this, the gross national income of Botswana was R117 million; Swaziland R94 million; and Lesotho, R62 million. In aggregate this is R274 million as against the gross national income of the Transkei which amounts to R407 million. The gross national income of the Transkei exceeds that of Malawi, Somalia, Burundi, Congo, Niger, Dahomey, Mali and Guinea. In other words, here we have a State in its own right. If we look at the gross national income per capita of the Transkei, we see that it is R175 per capita per annum. This exceeds that of Malawi, Lesotho, Somalia, Burundi, the Congo, Dahomey, Mali, Guinea and Botswana. In other words, the gross national income per capita of the Transkei compares very favourably with that of other Africa States. However, what is important, is that the Transkei has the highest growth rate in Africa, in terms of gross national income per capita per annum. Over the past 13 years the gross national income per capita of the Transkei has increased by 8,9% per year. This exceeds the growth rates of Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Swaziland, Somalia, Uganda, Burundi, Tanzania, Zaïre, the Congo, Nigeria and Ghana. [Interjections.] This is a bitter pill to swallow, and all the arguments which I presented here, are proof of the fact that the Transkei is a State in its own right that has a claim to recognition and that can … [Interjections.] Sir, those people are laughing about it. Tomorrow and the day after they will have to co-operate with the Transkei, they who always want to co-operate. Then they will be told: “You laughed at us at the birth of our Republic.” The hon. members can keep on laughing if they like; they will have to pay a heavy price for that laughter. I want to talk seriously to those hon. members. They must think of the future of South Africa and of their children. They must not laugh at people with whom they will have to co-operate.

I should like to make haste and point out, moreover, that the Transkei begins as an independent country without any accumulated monetary debts, towards the Republic of South Africa or any other body. In contrast to this—I should like to mention this in passing—the developing countries of Africa at this stage already have a debt of R85 000 million, so that half of their annual aid goes towards the repayment of this debt.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to see how the hon. member for Lydenburg took the House on a tour of the world with the object of proving that there was no room for minority groups in certain countries—which he mentioned—and that a minority group cannot exist in any African country. That is one of the arguments we on this side advance. The same Government and the same hon. member, who is not interested any more, the hon. member who maintains that minority groups do not have a future in any African country, are prepared to make Sotho-speaking Bantu, the Whites and the Coloureds minority groups in the Transkei. What is the hon. member’s argument worth? What is the argument of an hon. member worth who devoted one-third of his speech to proving that one should not place minority groups under a majority government while the Bill before us does precisely what he is afraid of. I shall come back to that point later.

Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Lydenburg referred to Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts. The hon. the Minister quoted from their speeches. He has been in the House long enough to know that what he quoted from Gen. Smuts was followed two pages later by Gen. Smuts’s summary. The hon. the Minister knew that. Why did he not quote that as well? Why did the hon. Minister not tell the House that Gen. Smuts said two pages later in the same speech that every group should also have a say in the central Government? This is in the same speech. However, the hon. the Minister omitted to mention that. Was it done wilfully? Was it done deliberately? Why does the hon. the Minister quote something to prove his case when he should know that the same speech from which he quoted tears his case to shreds?

†The hon. member for Lydenburg alleged that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had shown disrespect for the citizenship of the Transkei. If the dangers mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana do not exist in the euphoria land referred to by the hon. member for Lydenburg, why does he not attack his own hon. Minister for putting into this Bill, and into the agreements which flow from the Bill, the very protection that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana asks for in respect of the White and Coloured people of the Transkei? Another agreement takes the matter even further. This particular agreement provides that the White citizens of the Transkei, in addition to the matters from which they have to be protected as mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, must also be guaranteed immunity from criminal prosecution in respect of words spoken or written or all other acts performed by them. Is the hon. member afraid that members of his Government or that officials of the Government will use words of such a nature that the agreement has to include protection against prosecution for the very words that they may use as officials of the Government seconded to the Transkei? That is the respect which this hon. Minister has for the officials of his own department! He has to give them protection against the words that they may use, and yet that hon. member says that we, on this side of the House, are showing disrespect for the Transkei. If there is disrespect, it is in the actions of the Government. I am sick and tired of a Government which does things and then accuses other people of running down the country when they refer to those actions and deeds. Surely it is the deeds that count, it is the deeds that do the damage and not the person who makes a speech about the deeds. It is high time that the Government realize that what they do does the harm, not what people say about it. What we on this side of the House ask for is quite simple, i.e. is the same protection for the White and Coloured Transkeians as the Government is giving to its own employees.

We on this side of the House are opposing this Bill because we have always been opposed to fragmentation. We have always believed that fragmentation is no answer to the problems, neither of the homelands nor of South Africa itself. What we did say, and we said it clearly and unequivocally in 1971, was that if the United Party comes into power and a homeland is independent or on the verge of becoming independent, we would accept that situation, since we recognize that we would not be able to reverse it. We would hope to persuade such a homeland back into a federal structure, but we will accept the reality of its independence. That does not mean, however, that we support the policy. Our attitude has been consistent, which is more than can be said of another party in this House who, if I remember rightly, left the UP because the UP accepted a resolution refusing to support the purchase of land for a homeland which would ultimately become an independent homeland. The feeling of the members concerned were so strong in regard to that matter that they had to leave the UP. That is the same party who voted in this House last year for the consolidation of the land needed to establish independent homelands, homelands which would become independent States. In the House this party voted for the purchase of the land, they supported it fully and unequivocally. When it comes to the consequences, however, of that support, they vote against it.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, I was about to quote an authority on the attitude of the United Party in this debate. In a leader in the Sunday Times of 15 August, 1971, it was said—

And it continued—

In other words, Sir, that has been our attitude: that when this Government proceeds with this measure we will accept the situation which arises. But that does not mean that we have to support it; it does not mean that we have to accept joint responsibility for the problems which it raises. I want to call another witness—The Natal Mercury—which took the special trouble to reprint a leading article and to send the printed copy to every member of the United Party, and this is what they said. They welcome our acceptance of the reality of Bantustans and said that it removed a major stumbling block in UP policy, but then they said this, and it is still true today—

And then they deal with some of the details—

This was in the course of an article strongly attacking the United Party because of our refusal to accept and support the detailed implications of independence as it was then planned. But when the Bill is passed, obviously we will accept the reality. We will accept their independence and we will wish the Transkei well and we will seek friendly relations with them in the future. We could so easily have strung along, out of political expediency and knowing that public opinion largely was behind the Government in this, but we do not believe now, and we did not believe then, and it would be dishonest to pretend that we thought, that this Bill was in the best interests either of the Transkei or of South Africa. Therefore, as I have said, we are not prepared to accept joint responsibility for the problems which this Bill not only fails to solve, but also in fact creates.

For the Transkei it was Hobson’s choice. It was independence or nothing, and they opted, as was their right, for the independence which this Bill grants. But in doing so, the Transkei is cut off from a share in South Africa’s wealth, except in the capacity of immigrant workers. All future aid—economic, technical or administrative—will be by favour of the Republic and not by right of being a part of South Africa. So much for the Transkei.

For South Africa it is an irrevocable investment in wishful thinking, an investment in the belief that you can wave the wonderful wand of uhuru and 3 million “fears will just disappear. Because that is what it is, Sir. Each of these 3 million inhabitants of the Transkei is a ‘gogga’ of whom the Government is petrified. But, Sir, let us look at some facts.

The Department of Statistics showed, based on the 1970 census, that the Transkei had living in it 1,65 million Xhosa-speaking people, 83 000 of other races or homelands and that 42%—1,3 or 1,4 million of its people—did not live in the Transkei. We are therefore dealing with a … [Interjections.] … These are not my statistics, but those of the hon. the Minister of Planning—situation where almost as many people are living outside the Transkei as are living in it. They believe that you can just wave a wand and those 1,43 million and the other 1,6 million people will disappear into thin air and that this Bill, these six little clauses, is the magic wand which they can wave and a new State will be born. But this Parliament, this House, has a responsibility. As the midwife at this birth, it can no longer just gaze at the shining star which has been dangling in space to draw people, along to the new Utopia in South Africa, no longer to regard it as simply an easy escape route from reality. This House is the midwife which must deal with the reality of the birth of the new State. What do we find? As we come tonight to cut the umbilical cord, we find that there is not just one umbilical cord, but actually dozens of unseen cords which link the Transkei to the Republic of South Africa. In fact, some 48 agreements have to replace the umbilical cord of the Transkei tying it to South Africa—agreements, lifelines of future co-operation and co-existence which are not part of this Bill and which will not become part of the law. They will be simply agreements which will be subjected to all the pressures of international politics, with all the dangers that the pressure of international politics can bring on a young State, and, like any treaty, subject to unilateral termination. We are asked to cut the solid cord which links the Transkei to South Africa and to replace it with an airy-fairy list of nebulous strings and then take the future on trust.

Let me look at one of these agreements, Mr. Speaker. Let us look at the non-aggression pact on which part of the future security of South Africa depends. It starts off by expressing the wish of the two Governments, and I ask hon. members to listen to this wording—

Sir, there is something strange about that. Surely with a friendly neighbour we would wish to seek the common security of our respective States, and not the security which is common, only common, in both our States.

You are splitting hairs.

I am not. I am dealing with the meaning of words, and when you look at how this is interpreted in the articles themselves you realize why this wording is used. This agreement pledges mutual nonaggression. Neither State will use force against the other. This is all very praiseworthy. We all agree with it and we all accept it. It does not say, however, that either State will aid the other. It is not a mutual security pact, but a mutual non-aggression pact. This is a significant difference. It gives the undertaking that neither will allow its country or its air space, etc., to be used by States or organizations to promote subversive or other hostile actions. This is agreeable and satisfactory. But it gives no right whatsoever to deal with such a threat or such a situation. Article 3 accords the right of peaceful overflight by military aircraft and innocent passage of territorial seas. Articles 4 and 5 deal simply with amendments and its coming into force.

Has that agreement been signed?

I do not know. This is one of these umbilical cords that have been translated into a thin string under clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. What about the questions that are unanswered in this agreement? What, for instance, about the right of access to deal with hostile forces which may invade the Transkei? If a hostile force lands in the Transkei, this agreement does not give us the right to go and deal with that enemy landing on that coast. What about the right to military bases? What about the right to the use of military airfields or any airfields at all? This agreement does not give us the right to land our aeroplanes on a single Transkeian airfield. What contribution will the Transkei make to the defence of the Republic as it exists today? This agreement makes no provision for that. Surely an agreement of this nature should take account of the future possibilities. From our point of view, with 200 miles of Wild Coast which we are giving to a new Government, with new borders to the north and south of it, surely we should be told what contingency planning has been done and what new contingency forces are needed to deal with these new borders—borders which link Lesotho to the sea and which cut off one part of South Africa from the other. The agreement talks of peaceful overflight. What about reconnaissance? Are we not to have the right of reconnaissance, the right to search the coastline for submarines intent on hostile landings? None of this is dealt with, but yet this Parliament is being asked to blindly accept on faith an agreement which gives us no real rights whatsoever. Neither does it give to the Transkei any rights whatsoever, in the mutual defence of our two countries. There are other aspects too with which I do not have time to deal.

This is the Bill to solve all problems! What problems does it solve? It sheds responsibility for 1,6 million people and retains it for 1,3 million people, because it leaves over 1 million Xhosas in South Africa. It also leaves Whites in the Transkei. When this new concept arose those Whites were given an assurance, and I quote from an official Government publication which states—

Mr. Speaker, what is that pledge worth? This was published in the South African Digest for the world to know. Now we are being asked to take on trust the issues which were raised by my colleague and to which we have had no answer in this debate. What about the other problems? What about S.A.’s self-interest responsibility for Transkeian viability and our self-interest responsibility for security, now responsibilities we have no authority or power to discharge? And what about the problems this Bill will create? What about land claims and citizenship claims? I find it strange that that hon. Minister spoke for an hour today and completely ignored statements that have filled the pages of the Press, statements indicating a measure of fundamental disagreement on the citizenship issue. The hon. the Minister responsible remains silent, however. Why? Why did he not clarify or repudiate the reports? South Africa is left without explanation to face the attitude of one of the parties to this “uhuru”, on this “exceptionally unique day”, as the hon. the Minister put it. I have always thought that “unique” is something without compare. Yet this day is evidently “exceptionally unique”. The hon. the Minister simply avoided the issue that is in the minds of the people of South Africa. He simply glossed over it. We are creating the problem of more aliens in South Africa. We are creating an administrative machine without the qualified people trained to operate it. In the spirit of the hon. member for Lydenburg. I take exception to the attitude of that hon. Minister’s department concerning this. I have here a memorandum in which his department asked for an amendment to the law in respect of one of the service rights of certain people now serving in the Transkei. I quote—

This is the sort of confidence that hon. Minister has. His department states that after independence, unless one has the civil servants of the Republic there and unless they are protected by agreement and by laws of this House, services will collapse in ruins. What sort of preparation has that hon. Minister been making? This is not our propaganda. This is an official document, an official approach by his department to another department in order to obtain a change in the law to ensure that his civil servants will be able to continue to serve there. This is the Government’s opinion and the Government’s responsibility.

On 27 October I believe that a new situation will arise. South Africa will then mentally wash its hands of the Transkei and say: “That’s that, now let us get down to our real problems, the burning problems of South Africa itself.” I believe there is an urgent and irresistible demand, from the vast mass of ordinary South Africans, for a drastically new political dispensation in connection with the peaceful co-existence of White people, Brown people, Asians and the urban Black people of South Africa. These people believe, wrongly in my view, that independence will make this new dispensation possible because it changes numerical ratios. They will find, however, that the Government has no new dispensation and that there will never be any hope of finding such a new dispensation in the rigidity of the traditional philosophy which shackles this Government. There have been glimmers of hope. There have been halting, tentative steps that have led people to hope. It remains, however, always a question of the half step forward and the two steps back. This is no time for hesitancy nor for the irresponsible attitude of the PRP in advocating opening completely the floodgates of integration.

You are talking absolute rubbish!

That the people will also reject and treat with the contempt it deserves. The majority of the White people and the people of other race groups want to retain their group identity in South Africa. They want to protect their rights as groups, and they want to achieve a way of peaceful co-existence without losing that identity or those rights. Only a federation can achieve this, only a federation can make it possible. That is why I reject “toenadering” and talks of “deals with the NP”. I also reject what the PRP would like to do.

But I believe on 27 October the decks will have been cleared for the moderate, the responsible and the tolerant people of South Africa to break away from the traditional Nationalist loyalties and to move with the UP, the centrist party of South Africa, along a new road leading to a new era for our country. [Interjections.] When this Bill has been passed, when the people have got what they have supported and they turn to the Government to look for answers to the problems that remain, they will find no answers from the Government. They will find a Government shackled by a narrow, arrogant, sectional philosophy which is exhibited in this very debate—the arrogance, the conceit of people who believe that only they are right. The people will look to that Government and particularly to that hon. Minister, the most arrogant of all the Ministers, but they will look in vain for solutions which can solve the problem of co-existence in South Africa. I believe that when the people have got what they think is the “open sesame” to a new deal in White South Africa, they will have to turn elsewhere to look for the answer. That is why I support our amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill, a Bill which I believe offers no answer either to the Transkei or to all the peoples of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that in what the hon. member for Durban Point had to say, there was a note or two which differed from the words of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Durban Point has a feeling for what is being done in this Parliament today. I say this because he said that he wishes the Transkei everything of the best. He also said that they would co-operate with the Transkei and after what must happen has happened, after the Bill has been piloted through Parliament, they will accept the facts and realities. This is, after all, a positive note, which we did not hear from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. We heard only condemnation from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and, as the hon. member for Lydenburg said, a total contempt as it were for the ability of the Black man ultimately to govern himself. The hon. member for Durban Point, on the other hand, referred to the realities of South Africa.

We on this side, the NP Government, have been forcing the UP towards the realities of South Africa over a period of many years. Hon. members need only consider the change in the UP policy over the past few years because they simply had to fall in line with the realities which the NP created. We can go far back, to the days when we became a Republic, etc.

I shall return to other things which the hon. member for Durban Point said, but first of all I must say that the UP has a special ability for allowing the great moments in South Africa’s political history to pass them by without their having had the least positive share in them. However, the worst part of it is that they not only allow those opportunities to pass without making use of them, but they stumble every time over the great political opportunities in South Africa. They have a tragic record, especially with respect to the process of nation-building in South Africa, and then we are speaking about nation-building as it applies to the Whites as well. We know what we had to endure even from the group of hon. members on the other side who were left over from the old UP, with respect to the establishment of a Republic in South Africa. Once again it was a moment of nation-building with which they wanted to have nothing to do. Here we are once again engaged in a further process of nation-building, this time in respect of other nations in South Africa, which they have also been forced to recognize already through the policy of the NP. We are engaged in that process of nation-building and tonight they reject once again the opportunity to have a positive share in the process of nation-building.

What is offered as a solution? Tonight, once again, only one alternative is being offered to what the Government is doing—the UP’s policy of federalism. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that he was offering it because of its clarity, the cleared foundations upon which we can begin to build. Do you understand this, Sir? When the hon. member referred to that, I thought of a cutting which I have in my possession. At a UP congress in 1973 there was a draft resolution which asked the party’s constitutional committee to publish a simplified handbook on the policy, and this was unanimously accepted. Their people do not understand the policy. A draft resolution had to be introduced at the congress in which it was requested that the policy be explained in a simple manner. I can continue in this way. The names of those who spoke at the congress, were mentioned. For example there was a delegate by the name of Theron who said: “Ons mense op die platteland is eenvoudig net nie oor hierdie beleid ingelig nie. Voordat die beleid verder versprei kan word, moet ons self eers behoorlik ingelig word.” What did the hon. member for Durban Point, who once again conjured up spectres about security here tonight, say on that occasion? I quote—

Is it clear now, Sir? If we ask them to say what steps they will take, they say that they will not allow themselves to be forced into spelling out the steps at this stage. Then we are told that this is the great explanation! I can continue in this way about the hon. members who make such a fuss about the clarity of their policy. While we are dealing with the clarity or lack of clarity of their policy, allow me to ask two little questions: How many members will every legislative assembly have in the federal Parliament in terms of their policy? According to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana we have clarity about this. Then there is the question of the powers which will eventually be transferred to the federal council. The latest of which I am aware, is that this still applies only to tourism. We heard this from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. So far I know of nothing else which would be transferred. Nevertheless hon. members on the other side say that they have the alternative to what we are doing. They say that they have clear foundations of federalism upon which they can build in order to solve the problem of nation-building in South Africa.

What are the final borders of the Transkei?

The hon. gentlemen can kick up as much of a row as they like; in that way they are proving only one thing tonight. The issue for them tonight is their total inability to prevent what the NP is doing. In the past they still tried to oppose it, but tonight they are displaying a total inability, even when it comes to political debate in this House, to force the NP to adopt a different course. What are they asking us? They are asking us to change the policy which we have been progressively developing over the years—a policy which is based on separate ethnic unities, each with its own distinctive features and with striking mutual differences, a policy which does not have inferiority as its basis. Tonight they want us to do give up that policy, and therefore they propose that this measure should be read this day six months. They want the Government to do away with the historical occupation of territory which has taken place in South Africa over the years, do away with the areas in which the Black peoples have established themselves of their own free will. These are not homelands which have been allotted to them by some political party or other. They are homelands which they chose of their own free will. They exercised their free will and their homelands have been maintained in trust for them. Additions have been made to those homelands, either by means of the addition of land or the exchange of land. However, the original heartlands of the various ethnic units have been retained by this Government. It is a reality which we have to face in South Africa, a reality upon which our political policy has been built. Those hon. members want us to negate it, to have regard to it no longer in South African politics. They also expect us to throw overboard now the important principle of the preservation of identity. The Whites in particular, who had to struggle for a long time, in the face of the opposition of that hon. party, in order to acquire their identity, their particular constitutional system, which was their birthright in South Africa, now have to throw everything overboard. Those hon. members also recognize the principle of identity. I can quote long extracts to them from their own publications. That is about all which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana did tonight.

Group identity was also mentioned. It is mentioned on the first page of this federation document of theirs. On page 8 we find the same thing. I am not going to quote it all. We also find it on page 11. It is recognized, but at the same time they want to stifle it in some way or another in politics. They are trying in some way to place a ceiling on those identities in order to prevent them ever burgeoning into full realization. Tonight those hon. gentlemen also want us to throw overboard the important principles of no power-sharing in politics. Hence the motion they have moved, in which they request that the Bill stand over for six months.

What are you going to do in regard to South West Africa?

We are dealing with the Transkei. [Interjections.] That hon. member … I shall get hold of him too on the clarity of his party’s policy! [Interjections.] He tried to sell his policy in London. But what happened in London? “Mini’s en al help Jake toe niks!” is what was said. [Interjections.] He could not sell it there. Nor can they sell that policy in South Africa. Now, when we are discussing the Transkei he suddenly goes off at a tangent about South West Africa. Let us dispose of this matter. South West Africa is also in safe hands; I can assure the hon. member of that.

There are certain basic principles in our policy which are being carried out tonight. Together with this, with regard to the creation of political instruments, very good progress has been made over the years. This Government did not merely dish up theoretical principles to people. The Government carried out those concepts in practice. Those concepts have been applied. Please note, they were applied on a basis of co-operation. When this Government spoke of trusteeship, it realized that its trusteeship was a blurring concept because trusteeship must ultimately lead to emancipation, political emancipation, too. As progress was made, the policy of the Government practically became one of creative withdrawal, in the homelands as well. There the Government provided the people with the administrative abilities to govern themselves. In this way the White officials and the White authority gradually fade into the background. In other words, it comes down to a process of granting citizenship; both in the political and other spheres.

Tonight we do not have to bandy arguments about the history since the British annexation and the establishment of the Transkeian General Council in 1931, and so on. That history is well known. However, I want to refer you to the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951. In this way I want this to serve as a further illustration to you that there was consultation and cooperation, in this process as well. In terms of the Act of 1951 the head of State is empowered, after consultation with the Bantu in the various Bantu areas, to make provision for the establishment of tribal or community authorities, regional authorities and territorial authorities. Advisory councils were replaced by authorities with decision-making powers. Originally this Act was not applicable to the Transkei, but in 1956 the Transkei also accepted that authority system. The organization of the authority system in the Transkei has made particularly rapid progress since then. In 1959 there were already 126 tribal authorities, 26 district authorities and nine regional authorities. This could not have been accomplished in such a short while if the necessary co-operation on the part of the Bantu had been absent. An important fact is that it was acceptable to them because it fitted into their tradition authority structure. In 1959 legislation followed, and took those instruments and practice in municipal government a step further. This was done by abolishing White representation here in the Union Parliament and establishing separate parliamentary institutions for the various Bantu peoples. In this way we had the Transkei Constitution Act in 1963, once again after consultation and after a request had been made by those people. Therefore there was constant consultation with the non-Whites who were concerned in this matter. I am mentioning these important aspects of practice in national government. With the granting of responsibilities an evolutionary process was adopted with the withdrawal of the White trustee, in a diminishing process, as I have said, to bring about ultimate emancipation. There can be no practice for the citizens of a State by admitting them to the governmental institutions of the trustee country. If practice and training has taken place on all levels of government, surely the greatest expectations are created in this way.

If one takes them step by step and grant them increasing representation, then one creates the expectation that they will ultimately, too, have to take responsibilities into their own hands on the very highest level of government. This is where we are tonight. After the process of having practice, after the training in national government, we are giving these people the responsibility of also being able to govern their own State on the highest level, the level of independence. We have created in them an administrative ability. On one occasion a voluminous document was submitted at the UN on development of under-developed countries. It was not a pretty report. A host of external matters were mentioned which were alleged to have retarded such development in a political sphere. However, one remedy was not mentioned, namely administrative ability which must be created among people of the national State. We in South Africa did this and therefore did not make the same mistake. We carried through the process of schooling and training so as to enable them to manage their own affairs at the highest level. This is not what the UP policy provides, but that this Parliament should decide when the ability of those people is such that certain responsibilities may be transferred to them. In other words, a ceiling is still placed over the heads of those people by the policy of those gentlemen. Under our régime this is done in co-operation, but to my mind those hon. members create the impression that it will not be in co-operation under their regime, but that they will eventually take the decision without the other party coming into the picture at all.

I should like to go further and say—I do not want to act disparagingly like the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—that the co-operation which came from the authorities in the Transkei as well as from their present cabinet, redounds to the credit of those people. We have heard nothing positive on the part of the UP with regard to what the Transkeian leaders and the Government have accomplished. It is to their credit that we were able to negotiate with them in this way in order to create an independent neighbouring state near us in which no chaos or disorder prevails, but in which there will be a lawful government and in which law and order will exist to the advantage of those people as well as to the advantage of ourselves and other adjoining States. The people of the Transkei asked for independence and I should like hon. members to take note of who drew up their constitution. The draft constitution is a product of their governmental institutions: their Legislative Assembly, their Cabinet and leaders who we have over the years brought to where they are today. It is under this very system that the leaders were brought forward, leaders who are able to speak in their own right on behalf of their own nationals.

I have already been told to limit my time. I do not know how many minutes I still have but I only have one more thing to say. The other day at Meyerton I said that we in South Africa are still making the mistake of often seeing the Blacks as labour units and forgetting that the Blacks are also people who belong to a nation. We must not disregard the national feeling of the Blacks. We must encourage the ethnic ties of the Blacks. In these days in particular we must talk to the Transkeian citizens about these matters and encourage in them a pride in their homeland. In a little while there is going to be a fatherland belonging to other people next to us and we cannot disregard the national feeling of those who are still within our borders. We should rather encourage it.

I still have a great deal to say, but in a moment I shall be in trouble with the Whips. I want to conclude by saying that the hon. members also may share in the process of creating nations. We must draw the final political lines in South Africa. We must clearly indicate the political dispensation so that we do not have to fear permanent domination of the one by the other. Our other big problem, the more personal relations, will then be more relaxed and fall into a more natural pattern. The most important is still what we do with political power in South Africa. With the legislation which is before the House tonight, and which gives independence to the Transkei, the NP Government is on the right road. Like other hon. members, including the hon. member for Lydenburg, I also wish the Transkei everything of the best on their road ahead. They will always have the NP Government and the Republic of South Africa as neighbours. We and they, who have been placed on their road to independence by us, will be able to live together with us as good neighbours in South Africa, even if we do not have any help at all from that party on the other side in future.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister did not intend it that way, but if one had listened carefully to his well-meant speech, extolling the virtues of his policy and feeling that they have achieved the pinnacle of achievement, one would have found that, looked at from outside, it was terribly patronizing. [Interjections.] Yes, patronizing. He said: “Ons moet ’n volkeretrots by hierdie mense aanmoedig.” But national pride cannot, however, be built into statutory provisions by the Government of another race group. They do not need the National Party Government for that. If, in fact, there is a feeling of “volkeretrots” amongst the Xhosas or amongst other groups of people, then they will manifest it themselves. I do not say this to belittle the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, if one reads the speeches and take the general tenor of discussion there is this tremendous patronizing approach to what we should do to the Black “volkere”, instead of saying what they could be themselves.

This debate is taking place on two specific fields. One is a general philosophical discussion on the concept of separate development and self-determination and the other a more specific debate on this Bill and its contents. In the light of the speeches of the hon. the Minister, of the hon. the Deputy Minister and of the hon. member for Lydenburg, as far as the Bill, the critical issue of citizenship, is concerned, this sounds like Alice’s tea party. There has not even been any suggestion of conflict on this issue. The hon. the Minister said that there was a Cabinet agreement, but the other hon. members have not referred to it. What there is is a complete division, a clash, a confrontation between the Chief Minister of the Transkei and the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Government on this critical issue. The hon. the Minister owes it to the House and the people of South Africa to tell us what has happened and how he is going to resolve the problem. The effect of the hon. the Government’s action is that the whole question of the Transkei has been brought into dispute overseas by the Minister of Justice of the Transkei, because the Minister of Justice of the Transkei, speaking in London warned South Africa—

This was said in London by one of the gentlemen with whom the hon. the Minister says he has had successful negotiations.

Yesterday the Chief Minister lashed out once again at the Government in very definite terms—

This is what the Chief Minister said, the gentleman who is going to head the new State, the new Government. This is the man with whom the Minister says he has negotiated. The hon. the Minister owes it to this House to tell the story, to say what has happened and to put it right.

The hon. member for Durban Point has raised the issue of the purchase of land once again. He tries to indicate that there is inconsistency in the approach of members on these benches in regard to the matter. The old Progressive Party, ever since 1959, and the PRP subsequently, has been entirely consistent in regard to this matter. The hon. member will know that in 1959 we said, as we still say, that we will continue to support the purchase of land, whether it be used ultimately for independent homelands or not. Our point of view was that there was a solemn pledge, a contract given by a White Government, oddly enough given by a White United Party Government, to the Black people of South Africa, that in exchange for losing their common roll voting rights, they would receive a certain area of land. We do not believe that the question of independence or no independence is relevant. What is important is that a pledge was given, and that pledge had to be fulfilled. [Interjections.]

As both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana have said, this is a debate that involves a momentous decision, not only for this House, but for all the peoples of South Africa, with far-reaching implications for the whole of the South African nation. We are being asked in this Bill—and the hon. the Minister has spelt it out—to breach or do violence to the territory of South Africa and to cut out or excise from the wider South African society millions of citizens of South Africa, who through their allegiance in the past and through their labour over the years, have helped to make South Africa the country it is today. This disjunction of South Africa, this divesting of South Africans from their South African citizenship—and let me use the phrase—this territorial and human surgery, is part of the policy of the NP. I do not think that there is any dispute about it. This is part and parcel of the policy of the NP. I am surprised, as other hon. members are, that the hon. the Minister has got to go right back into history to try to justify what he is doing. It was not the policy of Botha, it was not the policy of Smuts, and if you read the “new vision” speech of Dr. Verwoerd in this House on 27 January 1959, it will be clear that it was not the policy of Hertzog either. It was certainly not the policy of Dr. D. F. Malan and it was not the policy of Mr. J. G. Strijdom. It became the policy of that side of the House from 27 January 1959, when they were mesmerized by the words and the philosophy and the ideas of their vision of the future presented by the late Dr. Verwoerd. Since then their policy and their vision of the future has been one of a fragmented country and one of a divided people. Our view is a different one. We see South Africa as one South Africa. We see the people of South Africa as one people, although not homogeneous, because there will be differences between individuals and there will be differences between groups. There will be different races and there will be different colours as well as different languages and religions. What we believe, however, is that those people, as they have been in the past, should be linked together in a common bond of loyalty and allegiance to South Africa. They should be allowed to live as citizens in South Africa without discrimination regulating their society through a federation of self-governing provinces, co-operating with the central Government.

We on this side of the House see our responsibilities differently. We see the challenges of South Africa differently from the members on the other side of the House. We believe that our Constitution imposes on us certain responsibilities and certain challenges. We are quite happy to face up to that. I read from the preamble to the South African Constitution—

We believe that the challenge is to find solutions to the problems of South Africa within the totality of South Africa. That was our attitude during the First Reading. We wished to have the opportunity at First Reading, untrammelled by the detail and by specific arguments, to restate our belief and our faith in one South Africa and to repudiate the hon. members opposite who, because they are afraid of South Africa, want to dismember it. They are afraid of the diversity of South Africa and so they want to strip it of its diversity.

Let me restate that our objection to the dismantling of South Africa is that we do not believe that it is in the interests of the people of South Africa, either in the particular or as a whole. We do not believe that by dismantling South Africa we are going to eliminate the areas of potential conflict in our society. We do not believe that it is going to lead to a situation where there will be maximum economic progress for all the peoples of this country. We do not believe that it will solve the cardinal issue of the sharing of power—you can call it what you like—the sharing of responsibility in the urban areas of South Africa where Black, White and Brown work and live together. We do not believe that it is going to enable South Africa to fulfil its national commitment, the commitment which affects the hon. members opposite as it affects me, to get rid of race discrimination. We believe that it could well be that we are merely entrenching discrimination on a territorial basis in South Africa. We have a different vision of the future of South Africa. During the process of fragmentation, as it continues, and when it has gone its full course, and has been stopped by the immutable facts and realities of South Africa, we will continue to work for the various constituent elements which have been carved out of South Africa, to come together again, to come together again on a federal or confederal basis. We will work to bring those elements of South Africa together again. In this we believe that we stand far closer to the philosophy of someone like Chief Kaizer Matanzima than hon. members on the other side of the House because when White South Africans have gone through the trauma of the ethnic surgery which is taking place today, in the Transkei there will be a State which is not racially exclusive, where Whites can become full citizens as well. There will be a State which will be an open society in which petty apartheid and apartheid will not be known. The Chief Minister himself has said: “I have no doubt that Black and White people will live in this country on an equal footing. The federation of the whole of South Africa cannot be ruled out.” We believe that in due course South Africa will become whole again because the forces of common interest between the various groups and the various territories forming South Africa are too great to keep us apart.

Hon. members on the other side will claim that this is a triumph for separate development, and for the concept of self-determination. Over the years and in this Bill the NP, through the cynical manipulation of political power, has debased the concept of self-determination. If self-determination is going to be real, if self-determination is going to be of value, it must be voluntary. It must be free from coercive pressure and it must involve the choice of alternatives. I want to put it to hon. members opposite: Has there been a choice of alternatives? Is there a choice of alternatives? If there is a choice of alternatives, it is not full citizenship in one South Africa, with the alternative being full citizenship in the independent Transkei; it is citizenship in a homeland which is limited to the land available under the 1936 arrangement or it is enduring discrimination of a non-citizen in the rest of South Africa. That is the choice which is put to them. I ask you, Sir: Has there been any coercion? Of course there has! We have heard hon. Ministers in this House, we have heard them outside this House, forcing Transkeians in the urban areas to take up citizenship against their will, saying to them that if they will take out Transkeian citizenship they will get 30 year leasehold rights. If they take out Transkeian citizenship they will be allowed to have trading licences and they will be allowed to practise in their professions. Now we have heard the hon. the Minister not only threatening individual Transkeian citizens, but coming close to threatening the Chief Minister of the Transkei himself. Worst of all, when I look at the National Party’s record in relation to its policy, it has used the concept of self-determination as a moral justification for discriminating against Black citizens throughout South Africa. This is what it has been. When you speak of trade union rights, when you speak of voting rights and when you speak of property rights, they talk of self-determination in the Transkei. They are citizens of South Africa and the fact that there may be self-determination in the Transkei is no excuse, no justification, for discriminating against them in the South Africa in which they live.

Not only has the National Party debased the concept of separate development; it has failed to do certain important things which can jeopardize the success of the experiment of the Transkei. They have failed in particular to provide the degree of economic viability which is necessary to ensure decent living standards for the people of the Transkei. Hon. members know this. They have failed to resolve the land issue, not only in the Transkei, but in the other homeland areas as well. They have failed to ask White South Africans to make the economic sacrifices which are necessary in order to make these homelands viable. They have failed even to implement the recommendations of their own Tomlinson Commission, namely to get 50% of the people off the land. This was in 1954. Yet today we find only 7% of the Transkeians urbanized in the Transkei and 93% urbanized in the rest of South Africa. They have failed to stimulate economic growth within the Transkei because they have concentrated on border industries and for many years they have deprived areas such as this of White capital.

Much more important than that, they have failed to create the climate of goodwill towards the Transkei, towards this experiment, both within South Africa and outside of South Africa. I believe that this hon. Minister and this Government should have had a national convention conference on the same lines as in South West Africa, where the options could be examined and where the differences could be thrashed out. Not only the Transkeians are affected by this legislation. The other Black communities are looking at this as a pilot scheme and are asking whether this is also to be their future. I can imagine the members of the South Sotho community sitting in QwaQwa and asking if this is the solution. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Is he going to get more land for a territory like that? Is he going to say to the people of South Sotho: “Either you accept the 1936 land settlement or else you can have no citizenship?” Sir, they have failed to create the climate. I believe there was every prospect, had this Government handled it correctly, had it got together the people of South Africa, of having created a climate in which there could have been a greater acceptance of the Transkei experiment.

We now come to the specific area of the Bill. The Government has now come with a Bill at this stage which is not so much an instrument for giving independence to the Transkei as a device for eliminating as many Blacks as possible from citizenship of South Africa. That is what clause 6 and the schedule means. The most important thrust of this Bill is that people are going to be deprived of their citizenship. It is not the creation of separate States; it is the creation of separate ethnic units to which people have to belong, whether they want to or not, and whether they are domiciled within the area allocated to that ethnic group or not. The citizenship clause, clause 6, and the schedule are being put to this House in defiance of the unanimous wish of the Transkei Legislative Assembly. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if he proceeds in this way, if he creates a condition where hundreds of thousands of Black South Africans are going to be stateless, it is no use for him, with callous disregard for the circumstances, to say: “Well, it is not our responsibility. ” It is our responsibility. This is our Bill, this is our law. Those people are South Africans. I do not believe we can just abandon them in this way.

Whatever we might say about the Bill, whatever we might say about the philosophy of the NP, there are certain trends and there are certain facts which we in these benches cannot ignore, nor can hon. members on the other side ignore them. I want to deal with two of these facts or trends. The first is that the Government of the Republic of South Africa, whether I like it or not or whether I think the Government is being cynical or not, has made the offer of independence to the Black people of the Transkei. This has been done. That offer, with all its defects, with all its shortcomings and with all the elements of coercion contained in it, has nevertheless been looked at by the Black people of the Transkei. At least part of the community of the Transkei—how large a part, I do not know—has accepted that offer. Nothing I can do can undo this fact. The offer was made and it was accepted by certain people, and that I believe is a fact this House—both Government and Opposition—must take into account.

Now I come to the second fact. Undoubtedly there is a growing momentum in the movement for independence in the Transkei. I do not think there is any point in Opposition Party members denying this. There is a growing momentum for the independence movement in the Transkei. Different reasons will, of course, be furnished for this. Hon. members opposite will say it is because they have explained the idea of “volkere” to those people and they now want to be independent. However, I think there is a whole series of diverse reasons, not merely the reasons of wanting ethnic exclusiveness. Some of them, it is true, would like to have ethnic exclusiveness. Others again will say that it is a territory of substantial size that has always had some form of self-government, so therefore why should it not be independent? There will, of course, be other people who will say that in the short-term this is the only means of escaping from the discrimination and the apartheid of the National Party Government. There will also be people who will say, however: Let us use the Bantustan, the independent home-land, as a power lever, as a base from which to press for more land or from which to liberate all the Black peoples of South Africa from discrimination. These are various possible reasons. At this point in time, however, I believe the reasons to be less important than the facts. The fact is that an offer has been made, a certain number of people have accepted it, and there is a move towards independence in the Transkei. We cannot gainsay that.

I want to make quite clear, however, that taking all these factors into account—e.g. taking into account the commitment the Government has made to a Black community—if a significant majority of the people of the Transkei openly express their wish for independence, we in this party, however much we might differ from them in their decision, would not stand in the way of their having independence. [Interjections.] We will go even further and state that under those circumstances we would do everything in our power to make that independence a success. [Interjections.] We are not here as dogs in a manger because we have not had our way on a matter of policy. I therefore want to put this matter to this Government and to the hon. the Minister tonight. In the light of the situation that has developed, we will not stand in the way of independence for the Transkei, subject to three conditions, and I think these conditions can all be met well before 26 October.

The first is that the wishes of the people of the Transkei on the issue of independence must be tested by an open referendum. I suggest this to the hon. the Minister because this is not just a Transkeian responsibility. It is also a South African responsibility. Therefore that referendum should be conducted under the joint supervision of both the Transkeian and South African Governments. I say this for a number of reasons. If the Transkei wants international recognition, let it be shown that the overwhelming majority of the people of the Transkei want this independence.

Secondly, independence must be subject to the condition that no South African citizen be compelled to become a citizen of the Transkei and that no South African citizen be deprived of his South African citizenship except by a voluntary act of renunciation on his part. They cannot be compelled and I think the hon. members will say, “Dit is billik”. They should not be compelled and they should continue to be South Africans unless they renounce South African citizenship. Thirdly I believe that appropriate provision should be incorporated in the constitution of the Transkei to safeguard the rights of minorities and to protect the basic right of citizens. I want to elaborate on these three points. I believe that they are reasonable, that they are helpful and that they are constructive and in the interest of the Transkei itself.

In so far as the referendum, a test of the people, is concerned, the hon. members know that so far the test has been through the Transkei Legislative Assembly, a body rightly or wrongly dominated by chiefs and not elected members to the tune of 60 to 45. At one stage, in the 1973 election, the Transkei National Independence Party, the party of Chief Kaizer Matanzima, won with a majority of 55% of the votes. However, the hon. the Minister knows that at that stage the Opposition was in a total state of disarray. In fact, there were nearly as many independent candidates as there were candidates of the Democratic Party. The hon. the Minister also knows two other things. One is that the poll dropped. In 1963 there was a 68,8% poll, in 1968 there was a 53,6% poll and in 1973 there was a 42,4% poll. In other words, if the 1973 election was a test of independence, it was the lowest percentage poll in any of the elections held in the Transkei. It means that less than 25% of the people have actually in any way endorsed formally the party which is moving the country towards independence. Secondly, the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite know that if one looks at the speeches and the election manifestos at the time, one finds that the issue in the 1973 election was not independence; the issue was land. In fact, the people were asked to vote “no independence until we get certain territories”. That was the issue.

Soon you will argue that your party did not win the Durban North by-election.

It was only towards the end of 1973 that Chief Kaizer Matanzima changed his point of view on this. He went to the Transkei National Independence Party’s congress in January 1974 and only subsequently did the Legislative Assembly approve of this. Therefore, it was after an election. I believe it is in the interest of the Transkei to get unanimity on the issue that there should be a referendum held before the Transkei goes independent. The independence of the Transkei should be the subject of public debate once the constitutional proposals are known. It is significantly different to talk generally about independence and to ask people to accept a particular constitution. I do not believe that 1% of the Transkei people living outside of the Transkei will opt for independence on the basis of the particulars of this Bill which have now been made available.

The second issue is the question of citizenship. We believe that the citizenship of a country is a birthright and that no legislation can take it away. In particular no legislation of a White Parliament can take away the citizenship of Black people. This, however, is what this Government is doing. This Government is taking away the citizenship of people. It says, “you either have a citizenship of another country which you may not wish to have, or you lose your South African citizenship”. This is going to create tremendous tension, not only between the Governments of the Transkei and South Africa for a long, long time to come, but—here I wish to sound a word of warning to all of us because we are all in the same boat together—it is also going to have a major impact for the worse in the urban areas of South Africa. We should not underestimate the anger, the frustration and the annoyance of the urban Black people when they find they are going to be stripped of their citizenship. Added to that, South Africans who remain South Africans are going to be treated worse than foreigners coming from the Transkei.

Finally, there is the question of protection for minorities. I want to make it quite clear that we seek protection for minorities not because there is going to be a Black Government in the Transkei. Unlike the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, we do not believe that Black Governments have a monopoly when it comes to coups d’état, one-party States, military régimes or nationalization. If one looks at history books, one finds that Black, White and Yellow people do the same kind of things. However, we do believe that the launching of a State and the drafting of a new constitution provides one with an opportunity to introduce safeguards which we believe should have been introduced in the South African Constitution. The simple fact is that the Transkei is not homogeneous. One sees this in the report of Benbo. They start off a chapter with the words “The tribes inhabiting the Transkei do not form a single cultural unit.” It consists of a number of tribes and of two different ethnic groups. There are also South Sotho people there, as well as 22 000 Zulus, 7 000 Coloureds and 9 000 Whites. The hon. member for Lydenburg quoted Angola and Mozambique as examples of what happens when there are different tribes in a country. Angola and Mozambique are no more fragmented into tribes than the Transkei is. [Interjections.] Where one is dealing with a plural society, it becomes especially important to try to protect the members of that community. The power in this case is not going to be handed over to the people. It is not going to be handed over to a rigid constitution which is the sovereign body. Instead, it is going to be handed over under the doctrine of South Africa, viz. the sovereignty of Parliament. It is going to be handed over to a body of which only 50% of the members will be elected, the other 50% to be appointed by chiefs who hold their office in terms of the authority of the day. When one has a situation that sovereignty is in the hands of Parliament and there is not a constitution to protect the judiciary, limit the executive and safeguard the rights of individuals, we believe one is opening the door to the possibility of the infringement of the basic rights of the individual citizens. We believe that something like a Bill of Rights or a Declaration of Rights is essential for the well-being and success of the Transkei experiment.

Because this Bill does not meet the essential prerequisites of a referendum, of no forced citizenship and of protecting minority and basic rights in that country, and because this Bill actually goes further and seeks to deprive South African citizens of their citizenship without their consent and in defiance of the wishes of the Transkei Legislative Assembly, we in these benches believe that the appropriate amendment to this Bill should be to delete “now” and to add “this day six months”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point proved tonight that his party has become a party without a policy. If we consider the history of the Progressive Party over the past few years, we would have expected the PRP not to have adopted that absolute poisonous standpoint which they adopted at the First Reading. However, they adopted a standpoint which had all the newspapers gasping for breath in amazement. Indeed the latest Sunday Times saw fit to read the PRP a lecture, just as they read the UP a lecture after the Oudtshoorn fiasco, which ultimately led to the UP having to revise its policy. Now the PRP is also being read a lecture. It seems to me that the PRP have taken cognizance of this. Perhaps they did water their standpoint down a little, but basically it remained the same. The Sunday Times said—

Then this very important piece of advice to the PRP followed—

This is the advice which comes from a newspaper like the Sunday Times. They also received advice from The Natal Mercury and from other well-known newspapers. Therefore we cannot understand the standpoint of the hon. party. If it had in fact been in accordance with their previous standpoints—standpoints which they have also revealed to Black leaders—they would have had to support the principle of their party. Surely the principles of their party are not in conflict with the provision of the first two clauses of this Bill. They should have accepted it in this form and presented suitable amendments afterwards. This would have been the appropriate course for them if they had wanted to act in accordance with their declared standpoints. I have referred to what the hon. member for Houghton said in this House in 1972. She said that it was part of the policy of the party to join self-governing states together in a federation. In 1973 a conference was held at Berlin, near East London. The hon. member for Houghton arrived at that conference and—so it is recorded in the newspapers—“and she brought some common sense to the conference”.

As I usually do!

It seems to me she left it all there. [Interjections.]

*As a result of the talks at that conference, at which the hon. member for Pinelands was also present … The hon. member will probably remember very well that he said to Mr. Ramusi on that occasion: “Do not forgive the Whites. That is too cheap. ” In any event, they were words to that effect.

Where did you get that? [Interjections.]

On that occasion various other well-known personalities were also present. As I was saying, the hon. member for Houghton, among others, was present there. On her advice, and on the advice of others, the following conclusion was reached at that conference—

And with a view to this they said—

[Interjections.] Autonomous States! [Interjections.] This is very important, because here we are helping to create a state in which there will be Black people, Black people with an autonomous status …

Do you agree with a federation of autonomous States?

… and here we are also affording a minority group the unique opportunity to become citizens, according to their own choice. There is a very good understanding about their future, but hon. members are not satisfied with it. They have always seen these autonomous States as the solution to discrimination. The author of the column “Willem” in the Volksblad put it very strikingly. He said—

This is of course not acceptable to these hon. members, because they would like to have the assurance that the White man will always be able to—and I want to put it very strongly—cheat the Black within his own constitutional context. We are now moving towards a situation in which the most grievous discrimination is disappearing, namely the denial of full citizenship, and in this we do not have the support of those hon. members.

While the hon. member for Sea Point was quoting from the Constitution Act, I involuntarily thought of the oath which a member of the House of Assembly has to make: “I do swear to be faithful to the Republic of South Africa and solemnly promise …” etc. To me this implies that, when hon. members discuss matters of this nature, they will ascertain whether their speeches will not be to our detriment abroad to the extent to which harm is done to our logical constitutional development, and that we will not have to deal with statements that are aimed at predicting revolution amongst certain Bantu tribes and then making sure that this does in fact happen; naturally with the necessary additional propaganda. To me this forms an absolute part of the duty of a member of the House of Assembly and I cannot reconcile this at all with articles which have recently appeared from the pens of hon. members of the PRP. I am referring in particular to the tremendous incitement in regard to citizenship. They had no way of getting to grips with this entire situation. In my opinion they have no other choice but to say, after 26 October, that we will be the first country to respect and recognize the independence of the Transkei. They have no other choice, after 26 October but to co-operate with us to make all possible attempts to gain international recognition for the Transkei. However, what are they doing in the meantime? They are making it as difficult as possible for us to do this, especially since they are creating a gross and heinous misinterpretation of citizenship in the international community. The hon. member for Houghton referred to the step which would make these people stateless. She spoke here as if three million people were involved here. Other hon. members of the PRP spoke about 1,7 million and 1,4 million. However, I shall try to indicate that this is a gross exaggeration and that the situation, as a far as citizenship is concerned, is being wrested completely out of context.

I want to emphasize that we are not conversing here with the Transkeian Government or any of its leaders, but that we are debating amongst ourselves. We are making out a case here concerning gross and heinous misinterpretations. What is the actual issue?

The original Transkeian Constitution Act of 1963 made provision for citizenship on grounds of birth in a particular area and on the grounds of descent from parents who were Transkeian citizens. Furthermore it made provision for a period of time in which those people would remain there and provision was also made for applications in this connection. On that occasion, in 1963, the Transkeian citizens within and outside the Transkei had already acquired citizenship. Following that we had the Bill which dealt with the citizenship of Bantu homelands and which determined that there would be a citizenship for every Bantu homeland. This meant that every other Bantu who was not affected by the Transkeian legislation, also obtained citizenship. Provision was also made for another factor with respect to the recognition of the acquisition of citizenship, namely ethnic and cultural ties.

In the Bill which is before the House at present, there is only one new element. In other words, the single new element which grants citizenship on the grounds of ethnic and cultural ties. All other matters have already been dealt with. This is the case, because in both the Transkeian draft constitution, as well as in the Status of the Transkei Bill, the Bill which is at present being discussed, it is provided that everyone who was initially, prior to this legislation, a Transkeian citizen, shall retain and have that citizenship. What this amounts to is that all citizens who previously had citizenship, in terms of the 1963 Constitution Act as well, are citizens. This fact is ratified by the Transkeian Constitution. In other words, there is only one new element which is being added.

I made a calculation of how many people could possibly be affected by it. I do not want to imply that this is a final figure, but hon. members on that side of the House implied that hundreds of thousands of people are involved here. The fact of the matter is that the 1970 census indicated that there are approximately 15 636 000 Bantu. Of this total 318 000 were unidentified. They were unable to produce statements to identify themselves with any population group. Therefore if we suppose that the Transkeian people represented a fifth of the total population at that stage, it is reasonable to assume that a fifth of the unidentified people as well could possibly be Xhosa-speaking or related to people in the Transkei. If this is the case, it would mean that we are dealing with approximately 60 000 people who are unidentified and who have not yet obtained citizenship of the Transkei in terms of an Act of this Parliament. Years have elapsed since the 1963 Constitution Act and the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act. Hon. members on the opposite side did not once present any argument in which a referendum was requested, nor did they make any proposal. We therefore deduce that they have today for the first time begun to think of alternative solutions.

The question of statelessness must be considered, because this question has been raised both by the PRP and the official Opposition. All writers on international law make it very clear that where there is decolonization and a new State is created, no citizen will become stateless as a result of obtaining citizenship of the new …

Are we dealing with decolonization now?

The same principle is applicable here, where one has the creation of a new State without this being done by means of annexation, take-over or war, but developed from the mother state. My argument is that the same principle is applicable here.

I also want to say a word about international recognition. Originally, when the Transkei itself considered the proposals in connection with citizenship by means of its Recess Committee in 1962, they definitely had in mind the creation of a foundation which would afford them international recognition. Therefore a careful study of the proposals which eventually became law, will indicate that the so-called jus sanguinis and jus soli, which are internationally recognized, gave them a foundation of nationality which vested in the South African sovereignty up to and until the acceptance of this status legislation. I say that their nationality was vested in the sovereignty of the South African State. However, when they acquire full independence, the rest of the citizenship, which actually means nationality, is conferred upon them. We are sure that they will thus be enabled to receive international recognition. According to many conferences it has been decided that this is in line with accepted practices.

In regard to international recognition, I also want hon. members to tell us that they will support it, for the Transkei definitely qualifies for international recognition. It will have its own territory, a permanent population and a government which has been lawfully legally elected under a Constitution and the Transkei will also be a State prepared to meet its international agreements. All this will be sufficient reason for international recognition.

Before I resume my seat, I should like to deal with the hon. member for Durban Point once again. The hon. member for Durban Point referred us to the non-aggression pact which we concluded with the Transkei and which, so we assume, will be ratified when they pass their own Constitution Act on 26 October 1976. The hon. member for Durban Point reminded me of the marriage contract which Balzac wrote about and to which he devoted an entire book. After the parties had agreed on the necessary property arrangements, the question whether the bridegroom would be able to send the bride a bunch of flowers was discussed. The question was why it had not been stated in the contract. The following question was whether he would occasionally help her in the kitchen. We could embroider upon it in this way. The fact of the matter is that hon. members have an agreement before them and that that agreement speaks volumes. It is a testimonial to mutual trust, and of Chief Minister Matanzima’s clear and unequivocally stated policy of anticommunism, especially the socialism which communism advocates. It is a testimonial that he will not give those type of people a basis for action. With this agreement, and the many other agreements which have been concluded, the world is being shown that South Africa can coexist with a Black State, which is the product of the NP’s policy, as well the product of the national aspirations of the Black people, and that we are prepared to enter the future with them without trying to outmanoeuvre them with all kinds of nuances and talks of federation and related alternative suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West suggested that the hon. member for Houghton had perhaps left her common sense at Bulugha. The hon. member must, however, not think that all of us have left our common sense somewhere else. In his speech he made mention, in a grandiose way, of the fact that we are now giving full citizenship to the Blacks in the Transkei. This, surely, is an acceptance that full citizenship is one of the most valuable rights obtainable in life itself. With this we agree. If this is the case, however, why was it necessary for the Government of the day and for the hon. the Minister in this Bill to force citizenship on extra-homeland Transkeians. This is what he has done in terms of clause 6 of the Bill. If it is such a wonderful thing to have full citizenship rights, why is it necessary to force citizenship on those Transkeians who live outside the Transkei? It is for something far deeper than the gift of citizenship that the Government is bringing this Bill forward. It is something far deeper than that. There is a deep, selfish reason why the Government is coming with the Bill. However, I will deal with that a bit later. I believe that hon. members who take part in this debate should be sincere in their beliefs, their ideals and their philosophies. They must believe that what they are saying here and what they are doing is in the best interests of South Africa and of all South Africans and not only of one narrow section of the population. This is vital to the consideration of the issues at stake here, issues which are of paramount importance to the country today.

It is in this spirit that I wish to propound here this evening my thoughts and basic philosophies and, I believe, the thoughts and basic philosophies of my constituents and my party. Like the hon. the Minister, I want to go back in time and go back, like he did, to the National Convention which took place some 68 years ago. This is a long period of time, but that was the time when we really started looking at ourselves in South Africa and deciding what was good for the interests of all South Africans in this land of ours. Delegates of the four colonies attended this convention and in the interests of all the people of South Africa they agreed to join together and to form a unitary form of government, with a form of provincialism included as well. They accepted that by joining together, they would be looking after the interests of all the people in South Africa. Why was this? It was because there was tremendous mutual advantages to be gained from a unification. There was the rich hinterland with all its minerals and there were the ports and railways leading to that rich hinterland. There were customs and rail tariffs which were causing difficulties and there were the people themselves which, the leaders at that time very wisely decided, should be brought together in a close community of interests. Therefore, through mutual endeavour and by adopting the motto “Eendrag maak mag” the Union of South Africa prospered, went forward from success to success and became what it is today: a Republic and a strong viable country. This has been brought about because of the fact that the people of that time believed that if you joined together, you would be able to go forward with strength.

What do we find now? What do we find happening in this day and age after the example which has been set to us by the success of the thoughts of these men who came together in the National Convention? We find that the Government that sits opposite us here today, has decided to fragment South Africa, to break it down into different States, into small States which I do not think even the hon. the Minister will be prepared to agree can become viable, homogeneous and useful States in the true sense of the word.

The three Protectorates and Rhodesia were invited to participate in the National Convention. Although the three Protectorates did not participate in a direct manner, this was the case with Rhodesia. The Protectorates were dealt with in a special manner after the Act of Union in terms of the appendix to that Act. In terms thereof they could come into the Union of South Africa if they so desired. The hon. the Minister, in relating the history of the National Convention, mentioned the series of Bantu Land Acts from 1913 to 1936. He stated as a reason for the introduction of the Bill, that previous Governments and the leaders of the country, had decided to grant more and more land to the Black people living outside the Protectorates, but inside the Union of South Africa. I venture to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it was not for political reasons that the leaders of our country decided in those days to grant more land to Black people. It was simply because at that time the Blacks by the nature of things were a pastoral nation. It was quite clear that there was not enough land on which they could practise their pastoral pursuits, and that is the reason why more land was granted to the Natives in terms of the 1913 Act, as subsequently finalized in the 1936 Act.

The Native question, as it was called in those days, and the franchise rights for the non-Whites, were also dealt with in the National Convention, and I would like to go back a little in history and quote what one of the members of that National Convention had to say with regard to Black rights. This is a record of what a certain member, Mr. J. W. Sauer, had to say with regard to the rights of the Blacks in 1909. He said—

That was at the National Convention. I quote further—

He went on to say as well—and hon. members must not forget that he was a Cape representative, which makes me very proud of him—

This was his warning. It was not heeded, unfortunately. The same sort of thing is actually happening in South Africa today. The same warnings are being given. The hon. member for Marico also warned about the same sort of thing when he made a speech on 7 April 1976, and when he said the following (Hansard, col. 4781)—

This is exactly what this Bill is attempting to do. After this Bill has been passed, and if all these extra-homeland Transkeians receive nationality and citizenship in the Transkei, they will, together with the extra-homeland Blacks from all the other homelands which are going to follow suit ultimately, be in the majority in White South Africa. These tensions will still arise. In terms of the United Party federal policy, these problems will never arise. [Interjections.] This is what this Bill and its successors for the other emergent homelands proposes to do, i.e. to bring about a position where there will be people living in White South Africa who will have a foreign nationality. The Blacks outside the homelands are not going to disappear and we have got to look at the facts and figures and see what the position is as it exists today. In 1973 there were 8,5 million Blacks outside the homelands and 7,7 million Blacks inside the homelands; 51% were outside the homelands. In the same year, how many Whites were there in the White areas? There were plus-minus 4 million Whites in the White areas, approximately half of the number of Blacks who were living in the White areas. Let us look at the figures which have been projected for the year 2000. There will be 18 million Blacks living outside the homelands, in the White areas of South Africa, and there will only be approximately 6,8 million Whites living in the White area of South Africa. At the moment, in 1976, these figures are proportionately increased, of course, from 1973, but as of today it is not unreal to say that there are 4,5 million Whites living in the White areas and plus-minus 10 million Blacks who are living outside the homelands. Therefore there will always be more Blacks of a foreign nationality living in the White area itself. This whole trend, this whole trend which I have expounded here, was what the Nationalist Party policy of separate development was designed to reverse. That is the aim of this Bill, to reverse this trend. We all remember the late Minister Coetzee’s guarantee regarding the year 1978. This Government is still trying to reverse the trend, but I shall make a prophecy here today, namely that this trend will never be reversed.

Again I want to quote the hon. member for Marico when, on the same date, he said rather plaintively regarding the Blacks who are living in the White areas (Hansard, col. 4782)—

That is of removing the Blacks from the White areas—

That is the situation he spoke about, rather plaintively, because I believe that that hon. member, who is a frontbencher, realizes that there is no future in the Nationalist Party policy of separate development.

Read a bit more.

Yes, I shall take it a little further. The greatest problem facing this Government was always what they were going to do about the political rights of the Blacks who live outside the homelands. That is the essence of the matter. That is the nub of the whole question. It is in fact the raison d’etrefor this Bill itself and for the formulation of the policy of separate development and so-called self-determination. I do not believe that there was this broad policy of self-determination which was the guiding factor as far as this Government is concerned. The truth is that they were frightened, and that they did not know what to do with the Blacks as far as their political rights were concerned. The Government decided well in advance that when a homeland was given independence, the people of that homeland would have to exercise their political rights, whatever happened, in that independent homeland, and that they would force them to do so. They would have no trading rights, no professional practice authority, no employment in the so-called White South Africa, and no home ownership without a certificate of citizenship. That was repeated by the hon. the Minister this afternoon. This whole operation in the Transkei is apparently an experiment, but how dare this Government carry on an experiment in an area as sensitive as that? Do hon. members on the other side deny that this is an experiment? Of course, it is an experiment.

Rubbish!

Of course it is an experiment! I shall quote the hon. member for Marico again. He said the following on 28 April 1976 (Hansard, col. 5613)—

There we are! [Interjections.] We have to accept this. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions. In his speech the hon. the Minister said that if the homeland refused to accept as citizens any of its own people living outside the homeland in the Republic, this Government would seriously consider refusing people of that homeland the right to come into South Africa. What, in the first instance, would that hon. Minister do with the people who have been refused citizenship? Would he deport them? Of course, he would threaten the homeland. He said he would. He will say that we will not allow any more of their people to come into this country. What would he do, however, as far as citizenship rights are concerned, if people are refused citizenship of that homeland?

And what will he do with the people?

Yes, what can he do with the people? Can the hon. the Minister not answer? Will he deport them?

They will become honorary citizens.

Will he grant them citizenship rights in the Republic or will he leave them as stateless people with no future? What will he do with their children or their children’s children? The hon. the Minister said this Bill would become a political pattern. Will he repeat that same threat to all the homelands, all the leaders of KwaZulu and Bophuthatswana? What would he do about labour if he suddenly told the Transkei that no more of their citizens could enter this country?

He could not care less.

What would we do about labour?

Now you are being quite silly!

But this is so. Can the hon. the Minister not answer? Can that hon. member over there perhaps answer me? That is a ridiculous statement by a responsible Minister.

But he is not a responsible Minister and he never has been.

I also want to say a few words in regard to the Whites in the Transkei. They had no part in the formulation of this policy of independent homelands, none at all. They were carrying on their businesses quietly, satisfactorily and very happily in the Transkei.

Good South African citizens.

For generations they have lived amicably with the Blacks in the Transkei. They were giving a service to them and acting as father confessors. They were acting as financial advisers, medical advisers and generally as paterfamilias to the people who lived around them. They had a mutual respect for each other, and here I am speaking more particularly of those more than 600 traders who carried on business in the Transkei. However, what happened after the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963? They were first of all presented with a White Paper, despite the recommendations of the Heckroodt Commission, that their rights should be legalized by legislation. Just after that they were told, by newly imported officials to the Transkei, by a newly imported Commissioner-General to the Transkei and by jubilant Black leaders that they must pack their bags and leave. But how could they? They had experienced for a few years the adjustment committee operating, the difficulties in obtaining reasonable prices for their land and the delays which occurred at the time, and should they then have packed their bags and left all the things for which they had worked all those years? This was the sad situation facing them. What happened then? I remember distinctly that four or five years later, despite what they had been told, homeland officials, leaders of this Government, Commissioners-General and the Black people asked them please not to leave the Transkei because we need you here to develop the Transkei. My question to the hon. the Minister is whether those Whites are still necessary in the Transkei and, if they are, is it not true that they should be given some form of true protection by this Government before independence actually takes place? Chief Kaiser Matanzima says that they should discuss their future with him. Of course they will have to do that, but in the meantime Governments change and leaders change, and the only security those Whites in the Transkei can obtain is through legislative protection by this Government in this Parliament. Unless the hon. the Minister rectifies this gross omission in the Bill, we on this side will never agree to support the Bill in its present form particularly while clause 6 is kept unchanged.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London City started his speech by saying that we must join together. He stressed, that is what we did in 1910 when we came together and said, “Unity is strength.” He said that all this Government wants to do is to fragment. Surely, it must fill the hon. member with dismay when he looks at the map of the world—nothing but fragmentation, from north to south and from east to west, nothing but boundaries, boundaries, boundaries in a fragmented world. Surely, he must be overcome with frustration when he thinks of the United Nations comprising more than 140 nations, and the number still increasing. We do not find nations joining together. Col. Gaddafi tried to join with his neighbour States some time ago, but it was a dismal failure. What is happening is that nations secede; they are increasing in numbers. That is the trend in the world and the hon. member will not stop that trend.

*We find the key word of this Bill in the preamble—

I think the word “desirous” expresses precisely what the feelings of the inhabitants of the Transkei are. It defines a concept far more compelling than simply a request which they have addressed to this Government. This is a request which is addressed voluntarily. I wish the hon. member for Sea Point, who spoke of “coercion” and of there being “no free choice” for those people, were in this House now. One finds the attitude of the Opposition astounding for two reasons. In the first place, one is astounded at the arrogance of these people. The Transkei is addressing a request, a very clear, unambiguous, voluntary, well-considered request for independence, and the reply from the Opposition—fortunately they do not have the final say is: “No, you cannot be entrusted with your own independence. You are not competent to regulate your own affairs. We cannot allow South Africa to become fragmented. You do not know what is good for yourselves; we know what is best. You must become part of this federal structure which we shall establish if we come into power one day. In that federal structure you must have a subordinate position and minority representation.” This is arrogance, and undisguised baasskap in its crudest form. I think it is time someone told the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that Queen Victoria died many years ago, that colonialism is as dead as a dodo and that imperialism is out. No wonder that a self-respecting nation such as the Transkei rejects with great contempt the offer of a federal state by the Official Opposition, as well as the offer of the PRP, and that Chief Minister Kaizer Matanzima even said that if the United Party should ever come into power, they would declare their country unilaterally independent; that they would resort to UDI.

The attitude of the Opposition astounds one, too, because self-determination and the independence have over the centuries been one of the most fundamental needs of peoples. The history of peoples is the history of their striving for self-reliance and independence, and subsequently for the stabilization of that independence. For the sake of the independence of the fatherland the greatest sacrifices have been made over the centuries, the most blood spilled and the most heroic deeds performed. The fires of patriotism and of nationalism which have burned in the hearts of people, have elevated them into great and dynamic leaders so that they acquired undying fame in the hearts of their people. Long after the acts, or rather the omissions, of the Radclyffe Cadmans and the Knowledge Guzanas are forgotten, the Verwoerds and the Matanzimas will live on in the hearts of their people, for they were the bearers of an indestructible desire for freedom among people. The Government of the Transkei is desirous that the Transkei should be an independent State. This desire on the part of the Transkei is nothing unusual, it is nothing abnormal. In fact, where this desire is absent in people, there is something wrong with them, they are out of step, and theirs is a mentality which one will probably never be able to fathom. However incomprehensible and strange it may seem, there are people in this world who have such a mentality, and they are sitting in this House.

It does not astonish one that the Opposition opposes this Bill in the strongest possible terms. Both the Opposition parties indicated that they move that this Bill be read this day six months. It does not astonish one, although it would otherwise have done so, that an Opposition which does not demand full freedom for their own people are also unable to grant it to other people. People among whom the flame of nationalism itself is wavering do not understand that there can be people in the world who can be inspired and motivated by nationalism. Not only did the Opposition remain cold and aloof to the national aspirations and striving for self-determination of their own people, they opposed it with might and main. They opposed every step, placed every stumbling-block in its way and availed themselves of every opportunity to sow every possible suspicion against the establishment of our own Republic. Never has this Opposition acted with greater vehemence in their resistance than they did in the great moments of the constitutional development of our own people. They held night sittings to do so. They opposed a separate South African citizenship. They opposed the acquisition of our own symbols. They were opposed to a flag and a national anthem of our own. They opposed this Republic. To every pole and every tree in this country they nailed placards on which was written: “No! Vote No!”

They are trying to manifest the same resistance to every step on the road of the constitutional development of the Bantu, for they expect that the Black peoples, just as they do, will have a mentality of subordination. The desire for independence was not prescribed to the Transkei. Listen to what the hon. member for Sea Point had to say. He said: “There was coercion. It was not voluntary.” Surely that is not correct. We did not prescribe to them. What self-respecting people would ever allow others to prescribe to it what is good for it. It is just as presumptuous as the Opposition’s allegation that the Transkei should not ask for its independence; that it should become part of the federal structure. The Transkei never asked for anything like that.

Why are you kicking up such a row about it?

Because you are so guilty! The people of the Transkei took their own initiative in this matter. They expressed the desire for independence. To them it was not a caprice of fashion, or an impulsive decision; the roots of that desire are very deep-rooted.

Last Saturday Chief Minister Matanzima said again at a meeting that he had been working to achieve the independence of the Transkei for 13 years. The hon. member for Sea Point quoted the name of the Government party of the Transkei a moment ago. That was the name from the very beginning: The Transkei National Independence Party.

Is it this Government which told the Transkei to choose that name? The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said: “Independence is an invention of the National Party Government.” I have never in my whole life heard more arrant nonsense than that. The desire for independence on the part of people goes back to the beginning of the history of mankind. It did not disappear in the previous century; it simply faded into the background when colonialism and imperialism reached their peak. However, the desire for independence was rediscovered shortly after the First World War. It re-emerged when President Woodrow Wilson of the USA and Mr. Lloyd George, the then Prime Minister of Britain, foresaw that the peoples of the world—including the smaller nations—would prefer self-determination. This is what is happening today, in our day and age. It is not “an invention of the National Party Government”.

They chose the name Transkei National Independence Party. I looked up the precise meaning of the word “nationalism” in the Oxford Dictionary. It is described there as “patriotic feeling”. Now we understand why there are hon. members opposite who dispute this Bill. Now one understands why the hon. member for Bryanston, according to a report in yesterday’s newspaper, said “it is the most abhorrent legislation yet”. Abhorrent, repugnant, abominable, is the legislation we have here before us, according to the hon. member for Bryanston.

The desire for independence on the part of the Transkei is very deep-rooted; it goes back a long way. As long ago as 1961, when the then territorial authority was discussing the question of self-government, one of the strongest subsequent opponents of the Transkei Government, Paramount Chief Sabata Dalanyego rose to his feet and said: “Self-government is good. But we want more than self-government. We want independence.” They called their party the National Independence Party. However, they went further, and in 1972 moved a motion in their Legislative Assembly. The hon. member for Sea Point is now alleging that no alternative was presented to them. The motion introduced by the Chief Minister of the Transkei on that occasion, read as follows—

The following amendment to the motion was moved by one of the Opposition members—

That is the choice they discussed.

That is what you are taking away.

It is true, we are taking it away, but we are doing so at their request, for they rejected that amendment of the Opposition member with a 75% majority. In 1973 the election issue in the Transkei was independence. In 1974 there was another motion in which they requested this Government to grant them independence and to set in motion the machinery that would bring them their independence. The hon. member for Sea Point said that he would accept it if he had the certainty that if a referendum was held the majority of the inhabitants of the Transkei would be in favour of independence. I noted down the hon. member’s words and he must tell me whether I am interpreting them correctly. He said—

Before that the hon. member had said the following—

The hon. member must pardon me if I say that it is a little arrogant to want to prescribe to those people what they should do. [Interjections.] However, there was consultation, and the hon. member for Sea Point must now tell me whether he accepts that there was consultation. Tribal authorities were consulted, and the urban councils in the White area were consulted. Of the 229 tribal authorities who were consulted 149 declared themselves unanimously in favour of independence. Among the remainder there were a few, here and there, who voted against independence. Then the hon. member for Sea Point spoke of the “anger and frustration of the urban Bantu”. This is what happened in the urban councils, for of 60 urban councils which were consulted on the question of independence, 53 unanimously declared themselves in favour of independence. Only seven cast a few dissentient votes. Of the people who were tested at those meetings, more than 125 000 said “yes” to independence, and fewer than 14 000 said “no”. In other words, 10% said “no” and 90% said “yes”. In view of this one feels a little ashamed and jealous, for our own Republic was established with a mere 4% majority, as against a 80% majority in the Transkei.

I want to conclude by referring to the second paragraph in the preamble to the Bill. It reads as follows—

Why are we doing this? We gave those people our word, and because a person’s word is his bond, this is the most inviolable agreement there can ever be. In the second place we did so because no nation is ever good enough to govern another nation; the same applies to us. We grant the Transkei and other peoples what we demand for ourselves. We understand the desire for freedom, for were we not the first people who for years waged a struggle against Dutch colonialism and British imperialism in this country? This was the case throughout our history, from the time of the Vryburgers, shortly after the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck. Throughout the period of the Great Trek up to 31 May 1961 there was a striving for self-determination. In the past 15 years, and for as long as it pleases the Creator to keep us here, it shall be our task to stabilize this dearly won freedom and to revel in this long-denied dawn of our own Republic. For this reason we are, in common with the Transkei, glad of their independence.

We are privileged people and have experienced unforgettably great moments in the history of South Africa. Fifteen years ago we were there when the dream of our forefathers came true, and we were emotionally involved in the event that took place on 31 May 1961. As long as we live the experience of that moment will remain fresh and evergreen and splendid in our memories. Fifteen years ago we were there; today we are here at the emancipation of another people and from the bottom of our hearts we say that we are sincerely grateful and that we share in the joy of every proud citizen of the Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Natal has delivered himself of a remarkable speech this evening. I must, however, say that it had very little to do with the Bill before us. The hon. member had a lot to say about the “verbrokkeling” of the world and about the arrogance, the “baasskap”, and the imperialism of this party, the official Opposition. I cannot see on what he bases this allegation. I believe what is happening here, what we are doing here is a process of decolonization that has been taken over by this Government from Whitehall and, as the hon. member has just said, from the decolonization process proposed by Mr. Woodrow Wilson of the United States in 1917. I do not believe that that tag can ever be made to hang on to this party, which has been truly South African throughout and always will be. I want to point out to the hon. member, who was an office bearer of the Church, that there were 12 tribes in Israel, but to this day the loyalty of the people of Israel is to Israel. And that is what we should have in South Africa: a common loyalty.

What one should understand clearly in debating a Bill such as this, is that there is a vast difference between the granting of independence to the Transkei and the acceptance of the legislation before us. My party and I reject the legislation before us for certain particular reasons. In the first place I should say that we reject it because it makes a mockery of constitutional law; secondly, that it interferes with the rights of South African citizens, both Black and White, and I shall contend in the course of my argument that it affects my rights as a South African citizen as well; and, thirdly, that it contravenes, contradicts and is in conflict with the Republic of South Africa Act. Before I proceed I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister in charge of the Bill would inform me whether he intends introducing an amendment to the Republic of South Africa Act. The hon. the Minister says nothing, and I therefore presume that he does not intend to do so. I should also like to ask him whether he has received a petition from the Cape Province for the alteration of the boundaries of the province, or whether he is about to receive a petition and when the petition is going to appear before this Parliament. The hon. the Minister does not reply. Apparently he does not know what I am talking about. I want to draw the attention of the House to section 1 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961—

The legislation before us today is materially altering the map as it existed on 31 May 1961. Obviously there should therefore be an amendment to the definition of what the Republic of South Africa is. However, the hon. the Minister fails to answer the question. He has not indicated that he intends to amend this Act.

I also should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to section 114 of the same Act, which states very clearly—

The hon. the Minister has not indicated to the House whether he has received a petition. Obviously Parliament must be petitioned, but we have not yet seen such a petition before this House. [Interjections.] No, I am not replying to any questions this evening. There has been no petition from the Cape Province, a province which will be altered materially by the Bill before us. I believe therefore that this Bill constitutes a contravention of our Constitution Act. The hon. the Minister and his legal advisers will no doubt reply that Parliament is sovereign and that this was upheld by the Appeal Court in the judgment given in 1957 on the enlarged Senate, in terms of the Senate Act, Act No. 53 of 1955. However, that is not so. That judgment does not indicate that Parliament is sovereign. It indicates that this Parliament is sovereign only over the constitution of a House of Parliament. Let me read the judgment. After having accepted the judgment in the case Harris and Others v. The Minister of the Interior, a case which had to do with legislation and the rights of individuals, the judge said—

That argument which has so often been used in this House, that Parliament is sovereign over everything, is not, in fact, an argument at all because that judgment makes it very clear that Parliament is sovereign only over the constitution of this House and the Other Place.

As far as the rights of others are concerned, it was found by Mr. Justice Centlivres in 1952 that the High Court of Parliament Act and the Separate Representation of Voters Act were invalid. This was a long judgment but I quote the following extract from it—

The judge proceeded to find in favour of the appellant. This Bill before us is totally inadequate. The Minister has dealt with clauses 4 and 5 in terms of which the existing treaties, conventions and agreements are binding on the Republic and in terms of which the Government of the Transkei may denounce any such treaty, convention or agreement. Is this to be done unilaterally or bilaterally? Where is the appendix?

The hon. the Minister quoted the Savoy Hotel speech of Gen. Smuts in 1917, but in the very same passage he quoted, Gen. Smuts said that the Act of Union “shall be remembered for its appendices as much as for its contents”. He forgot to quote that, and there are no appendices to this Bill. Three folios of the agreements were sent round for the information of members of the Opposition. Where do these agreements appear in a schedule or in an appendix to the Bill? This is what the people of South Africa want to know and what the White residents of the Transkei want to know. One cannot introduce constitutional legislation of this nature without having those appendices and having them put into the Act. This also applies to clause 5 which provides—

Where are the agreements in the Act? Surely this House cannot be expected to accept something in vacuo. The Minister has said “daar is ’n aansienlike aantal ooreenkomste”. That is no good, however, for the purpose of legislation. This is not constitutional law; it is stupidity.

So far as citizenship and the rights of individuals are concerned, I believe that clause 6, particularly clause 6(1), read with paragraphs (f) and (g) of Schedule B, affects me personally as a South African citizen. There is no reference here as to your colour or race, but I would like the hon. the Minister to look carefully at clause 6(1) which reads—

Let us have a look at Schedule B which provides—

Seven categories of persons are given in the schedule, but let us come to paragraph (f) of the schedule which reads as follows—

The paragraph does not refer to a home language; it simply says “speaks a language”. Where do I stand as a South African? This Bill is absurd. Let us take paragraph (g), which reads as follows—

In terms of this my wife is also a citizen of the Transkei and forfeits her South African citizenship. I am proud of my South African citizenship. I am extremely proud of it and I do not deal in this sort of legislation. I believe the hon. the Minister should withdraw the Bill and refer it to a Select Committee and get something done about it. However, as long as he persists with it in its present form, we say “this day six months” and send it down the drain. It not only concerns me; it gives the Xhosa- and Sotho-speaking person who is Black no right whatsoever to chose whether he can go to QwaQwa or whether he can go to the Ciskei. He may very well wish to choose.

There is an appeal board.

Yes, there is an appeal board, but the legislation does not even say who recommends people to go to the board.

*Read a law properly and understand it; do not come to this House and ask it just to accept it. This is a stupid law; a dumb law. I am a South African, and I stand by my South African ship and I shall certainly no abandon it for such nonsense as is contained in this Bill. [Interjections.]

†I still want to answer from the hon. the Minister, in regard to the constitutional question, as to whether he has received a petition from the Cape Province. Where is that petition and when it is going to arrive on the Table of this House so that the matter can be discussed here? He cannot alter this, because this is not a subdivision of a province into another province. This is an excision from a province. He is taking a whole section of the Cape Province away and making it a foreign country. As far as clause 1 is concerned, there will have to be an amendment to the Constitution Act to redraft the boundaries of the Republic. That should all be included in this Bill, but the hon. the Minister goes blithely on …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am not prepared to answer a question. I told the hon. member before that I was not prepared to answer any questions, because I am talking about a very serious matter in the history of South Africa. We do not begrudge the people of the Transkei their independence if they want to take their independence, but if they are to have independence, then it must be done constitutionally; it must be done with a proper Act, with the proper appendices, setting out clearly and exactly what that independence is going to be. It is no good saying to hon. members in this Parliament that the Government is going to withdraw its sovereignty and that the Transkei will then pass an Act and that there is no need to put all the agreements and treaties into appendices because we have them here. The public want to know, and the public want those agreements and treaties enacted in the Act. This applies particularly to the White people in the Transkei who were refused a hearing at the Bar of the House the other day. They, particularly, want those appendices in the Act so that they will know what their rights are. There should be an indemnification written into the Act as there is in the Bantu Laws Amendment Act of 1974 in respect of businessmen and entrepreneurs in regard to their businesses. Those people who are in the Transkei today are the people who have built the Transkei. The whole economy of the Transkei was built around the Transkei traders and the businessmen of the Transkei. These are the people who are being sold down the river today without any guarantee whatsoever in this Bill. We cannot accept this sort of thing. This is a half-baked, mediocre insult to constitutional law. We shall not, we cannot and we will not support this Bill.