Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening, I was posing the reasons for the Transkei’s independence, and had asked the question whether this was an act of decolonization. I must be asked secondly whether it is in fact an act of partition, thirdly whether it is true self-determination, and fourthly whether it is merely a justification for the Nationalist philosophy, which is the achievement of the impossible dream of an ethnically pure State. Answers need to be given to these four questions so that we can establish what is in fact the object of giving the Transkei its independence.

With this Bill there was an opportunity which could have been taken by the Government. The Transkei’s independence could have been demonstrated to be the result of a decision by its people in a process of true self-determination, and it could have been shown as being a just approach to citizenship, which would have encouraged other homelands and earned the respect of the world. As the debate has already shown, the citizenship issue is, perhaps, the major one, and the question must be posed as to whether the manner in which the Government has dealt with it is in fact not fundamental to its philosophy of an ethnically and politically pure White State. In this connection it is interesting to read a statement, presumably a policy statement, which was made by the Secretary for Bantu Administration in the Public Servant of February 1976. He is reported as having said the following—

It is clear that what is sought to be achieved is in fact an ethnically pure State—and the presence of the Coloureds and the Indians in it is something which we will debate on another occasion. If this is so, the question must be asked, as other homelands will ask it, whether the citizenship issue is really a negotiable one.

The creation of new States is not unique, and involved in such evolution is always the issue of citizenship. Government is normally based on territory, and with a change in sovereignty it is the inhabitants of the territory who acquire the nationality of the successor State. The issue is: Who are to be regarded as the inhabitants? Normally in international law one has regard to such factors as birth, domicile and residence, either as alternatives or as combinations. In addition, one has regard for those inhabitants who do not wish to take the nationality of the new State.

Nationality, Sir, is a right and a privilege; it is not foisted unwillingly on people. Here one can quote an example, which is perhaps amusing in some respects, where this has been tried. Mexico tried it. It imposed Mexican nationality on anyone who became the father of a child who was born in Mexico or who bought property in Mexico, and under protest this was changed, as it was said that the fathering of an illegitimate child was not to be regarded as evidence of a permanent affection for the Mexican nation. In more serious vein, the famous Nottebohm case gave further support to the concept that there must be a genuine and real link between the State and the individual on whom the nationality is imposed. It is significant that when independence is given, those who do not want the new nationality often are given the right to retain the old nationality even if they are inhabitants of the new State and even if they have been born and bred there and are physically present there. In this connection one can refer to an example which applies to minority groups. In Kenya in 1963 there was a choice given in regard to nationality. When, five years later, there was a sudden rush of immigrants to Britain, concessions were still extended.

If we look at the Transkei, we have to accept the fact that of those who have lived there for generations, particularly among the Sotho people, there are some who do not wish to be part of the Transkei. Nevertheless, citizenship is being foisted upon them. There is another example, a topical one and a local one. When the Republic of South Africa was born and we ceased to be part of the Commonwealth, Britain at that stage extended to those people who wished to live in Britain the right to obtain UK citizenship. The fact that very few people in South Africa took advantage of that is irrelevant. The fact remains that it was at least offered. There are many other precedents which do not support the actions of the Government. To suggest that those who are neither domiciled nor resident in the Transkei and who wish to remain South Africans should lose their nationality solely by reason of language, relationship or even association, is something which is unique in international law. Nationality is traditionally based on two legal concepts, namely the ius soli, the right to nationality by reason of birth in a territory, and the ius sanguinis, which is the right to nationality by reason of relationship, normally the nationality of parents. If we apply basic principles and equity to the Transkei nationality issue, the correct formula would be that those resident and domiciled in the Transkei should become Transkei citizens, unless they within a specified period elect to remain South Africans, as well as those who are domiciled in the Transkei without being resident there or those otherwise connected with the Transkei in terms of the ius sanguiniswho elect to become Transkei citizens.

Sir, the Transkei will have enough problems in the international field without this further complication which is being created in these circumstances. World opinion is against the creation of stateless persons. Text-book writers say that history shows that totalitarian States deprive people of their nationality for political and racial reasons, and we pride ourselves that we are not a totalitarian State. If we look at the universal Declaration of Human Rights, we find that it is provided in article 15 that everyone has a right to a nationality and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or denied the right to change his nationality. We can look, for example, at the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, in terms of which, in article 8, it is provided that a contracting State shall not deprive a person of nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless. Article 9 provides that a contracting State may not deprive a person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds, while article 10 provides that every treaty between contracting States providing for the transfer of territory shall include provisions designed to secure that no person shall become stateless as the result of that transfer.

Sir, these are provisions which are contained in international conventions. It is not suggested that they are legally binding on us, but this is what the international community expects. It is cynical in the extreme to suggest that if anybody becomes stateless it is the Transkei’s fault and not the Republic’s fault. It is our job to see that people do not become stateless. I wonder, Sir, whether it is appreciated what it means to be stateless. It is like a ship, like the ship which was dealt with at the time of the exodus, when Palestine eventually became Israel, the ship, the Asyaabout which anybody can read the facts in the Law Reports of 1948 A.C. 361, if one wants to read it. To be stateless is to have no protector, to have no rights, and in the case of the ship can be seized by anyone.

In the case of an individual it means that there is no one to protect that individual. It is little surprise, therefore, that the American Convention on Human Rights, in article 29, provides that every person has a right to the nationality of the State in whose territory he was born, and if he does not have the right, to any other nationality, and no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or of the right to change it. Sir, to play a part in potentially making hundreds of thousands of people stateless, is something that we certainly want no part in. Sir, this is a crossroads situation for South Africa. Party politics, I believe, is a secondary consideration, or should be in this debate. Race relations, our future, African and world attitudes, are the vital factors. We who sit in these benches are realists. We know that we are not in power, but our duty is to point to the alternatives, although we know that we cannot implement our own policy. Realistically, therefore, we cannot implement it because we are not in power. Realistically, however, we know that this will be passed, and we have a duty to try, within the ambit of that fact, to persuade the Government to do what we consider to be in the best interests of all our people, and this naturally includes the people of the Transkei. I would therefore like to make a last-minute appeal, not to the hon. the Minister, because I do not think that will help, but to the hon. the Prime Minister, to deal with the Transkei issue in a manner which can bring about unanimity in this Parliament, in a manner which will demonstrate to our people, to Africa and to the world that the decisions of the Transkeian people are true acts of self-determination and that no-one has been deprived of citizenship against his will, and in a manner which will make the Transkei an economically viable showcase demonstrating what homeland development can be. Sir, it is not important whether our requests as a party on the Transkei are met.

What is important is whether the requirement for South African future security is fulfilled. This is why, at this eleventh hour, deliberating as we do on the Transkei, we call for a broadness of vision, for real statesmanship from the Prime Minister, from the man who leads this Government and who has been chosen to lead this country. In return—and we make this offer quite unconditional—we, despite the fact that we do not believe in independence for the homelands nor that this will be a solution for our racial problems, will, if the Transkei becomes independent, neither obstruct nor hinder it and its peoples in their legitimate aspirations. On the contrary, we shall seek to assist those people and wish them well. History will judge all our actions today and determine whether the course South Africa is embarking upon will lead to peace or to confrontation. We believe that the course embarked upon by the Government is the incorrect one, and we believe that before irrevocable steps are taken, a convention of all our peoples should be held. If the wrong path is chosen, however, it is still our duty to mitigate the dangers that such a wrong choice may hold. This we have sought to do. We believe we have done our duty, and I hope everyone else here can say the same. I should also like to draw attention to another matter, and I do so not in a spirit of creating problems, but in a spirit of pointing out a certain difficulty. In section 1 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, the Republic of South Africa is defined as—

Section 118(1) of that Act, however, provides that—

Section 108, to which reference is made in section 118, contains the remaining entrenchment, i.e. that of language, and yet we are going to change the situation such that in the Transkei Afrikaans is no longer going to be an official language. It seems to us, that the Transkei should be placed on the road towards independence without legal technicalities. If such is the case, we feel that the hon. the Prime Minister should recommend to the State President that a joint session of Parliament be convened, because without such a joint session—by reason of the entrenchment of section 118, read in conjunction with section 108—the point may well be taken in the future that the independence of the Transkei has come about as a result of an unconstitutional act. I am not drawing attention to that fact in order to create problems. I merely wish to request that the hon. the Prime Minister look at the matter and call for a joint session of Parliament during the present session.

There is a further matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the question of territorial waters. Why is there no reference in this Bill to territorial waters? Why is the Transkei not vested with rights in respect of territorial waters, fishing limits and a continental shelf? Surely the Transkei should have these rights, and surely such rights should be contained in this legislation? This is something that should be done if there is to be a spirit of understanding and if the Transkei is to be launched as a state in the correct manner. Surely that is a matter to which attention should be given. If, even at this eleventh hour, the Government would make some effort to try to achieve unanimity in this House so that the Transkei can be launched as a state in a manner such that all the people could accept it, the Government would be seizing the moment of destiny and would be taking the correct action.

Mr. Speaker, we have just had the doubtful privilege of listening to more or less the 160th speech of the hon. member for Yeoville this session. Listening to the contents of his speech, one can understand the difficulty he had with his Whips in getting an opportunity to participate in this debate.

To begin with, the hon. member said that this moment was one of the greatest moments since 1948. I think he could have gone back even further, to the Statute of Westminster, seeing that that is actually comparable with the situation which we have before us today. On an occasion like this, one would have expected the hon. member for Yeoville to raise his head from the mud in which he finds himself and to have tried to aspire to the greatness he nearly achieved in Uitenhage in 1974 when he said that it was the task of the Opposition to support the Government in every forward step it took.

Yes, if it is a forward step.

If any forward step has ever been taken, it is being taken now, with the passing of the Status of the Transkei Bill. One can hardly imagine a greater and more positive step for the removal of discrimination than this very Bill. However, the hon. member kept burrowing in the mud. He opened his speech by saying that this debate was “Hamlet without the Prince”, since the hon. the Prime Minister was not piloting this legislation through Parliament.

I say that the comparable legislation is the Statute of Westminster. In that Act Britain surrendered its sovereignty over the Commonwealth countries, but the legislation was not piloted through Parliament by the Prime Minister of Britain, but by Mr. J. H. Thomas, the Minister of Commonwealth Affairs. The Status Act of 1934 which was introduced in fulfilment of a promise, too, was not piloted through Parliament by Gen. Hertzog or by Gen. Smuts, but by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, the hon. O. Pirow, K.C.

But at that time every South African citizen remained a British citizen.

To equate emancipation with decolonization indicates a lack of ideological knowledge which is so damning that it really deserves no answer.

The hon. member went on to deal with the question of citizenship. Once again the question of citizenship affords the Opposition an opportunity to give full expression to their basic opportunism. I must point out, however, that it has already been said that there is in point of fact no issue about the question of citizenship. There are only a small number of people involved in the dispute concerning the question of citizenship. It has also been pointed out that it is not a position of statelessness that is being effected by the legislation, but simply a removal of dual nationality. The spectre of the old “Empire” idea, however, still walks the ranks of the Opposition in the form of dual loyalty, the “common loyalty”, to which the hon. member for Sea Point refers. They have no objection to citizenship being granted to the inhabitants of the new State, as long as there is no question of untying the apron-strings tying them to Great Britain, of severing the ties with the British Queen to whom they were so attached. It was because of this common loyalty that the Opposition and their predecessors revolted against the idea of “South Africa first” even at that time, because they were unable to distinguish between what was in the interests of South Africa and what was in the interests of the greater Empire. I say away with the idea of dual citizenship. One cannot serve two masters and no one who is worth his salt, wants to accept the citizenship of two countries. Surely it is not a unique phenomenon that there will be fewer people with Transkeian citizenship within the Transkei than outside it. After all, this is also the case in the British Commonwealth of Nations. Instead of the Opposition assisting the Transkeians to engender that feeling of loyalty towards their own country, and encouraging them to aspire to their own nationhood, the hon. members are advancing weak arguments like this.

I said at the outset that it was interesting to draw a comparison between the times when the Statute of Westminster was placed upon the Statute Book—legislation which can be compared with the Status of the Transkei Bill—and the times in which we are living today. Since we are living in the atmosphere of the Transkei becoming independent and of granting status to a country which is becoming sovereignly independent, I think it may serve a useful purpose if we look back to the times when the Statute of Westminster was passed. To do so is a particularly informative experience. There are numerous points of similarity which prove the maxim that history repeats itself. However, there are also numerous examples to be found for the maxim that one must take what is good from the past, shape one’s ideal on that and build the future on that. When Mr. Thomas moved the Second Reading of the Statute of Westminster, he said—

In the terminology of today, these words are essentially the same as those which the hon. the Minister used on Monday. At the same time, in the terminology of today, they are essentially a powerful demonstration of a movement away from discrimination. If ever there was discrimination, it was the discrimination in favour of the “Mother Country” during her colonial rule.

A second example which proves the maxim that history repeats itself, we find in the action of the Opposition, especially in the action of the hon. member for Sea Point. He is opposing this legislation, inter alia, because he is not convinced that the majority of Transkeians are in favour of the independence of the Transkei. In the same way somebody, whose status was infinitely higher than his, used the following words when Gen. Hertzog went to the Imperial Conference in 1926 to advocate the founding of the Commonwealth and to have the sovereignty of South Africa recognized—

But only eight years after that, the same person, Gen. Smuts, to be specific, voted in favour of the Status Act. Therefore there is hope that one day, when this new virile young state takes its place amongst the comity nations, the hon. member for Sea Point, too, will have a change of heart.

There is a third point of similarity which I should like to emphasize. In 1934 none other than Mr. Hofmeyr, who was Minister of Mines at the time, isolated two important facts surrounding the matter of obtaining sovereign independence. The one was that one could not frustrate a people’s aspirations to freedom and independence, that one could not suppress its urge for self-realization. He could have added to that that one could negate a people’s aspirations to preservation of its own identity. He said—

Lord Balfour was quoted as follows—

The second fact which Mr. Hofmeyr emphasized was that this laid a foundation for mutual co-operation which was not weaker, but, in fact, stronger. What strong emphasis is being placed on this fact in the legislation which is before this House at the moment! It is emphasized in the exchange of agreements and notes between South Africa and the Transkei. One can also see this in their Constitution. For example, this becomes apparent from a comparison between the powers which will vest in their President with the powers of the State President. If one looks at the agreements, one sees that friendship and the certainty of mutual assistance and mutual trust radiate from them. Just think of the making available of our examination facilities, the representation on our examination board and our board of moderators, the continuation of services by Escom, the continuation of the road construction programme, the assistance with regard to economic development, the co-operation in the sphere of agriculture and veterinary services, the health services, the seconding of judges and officials in all spheres, the nonaggression pact and the granting of preferential treatment to homeland citizens in respect of employment opportunities in South Africa. The most important of all—and I wish that the critics of the policy of separate development would take cognizance of this fact anew—is the fact that the strongest urge of man, apart from the urge of self-preservation, is the territorial imperative. We may read what naturalists have to say in this regard. Even the strongest among us dare not encroach upon the territory of the weakest among us. We, the Whites, have surrendered what is basically our territory for the benefit of our Black neighbours. Last year the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs referred to this. What greater gesture of sacrifice can one make towards one’s fellow-man than surrendering—apart from one’s life—the land of one’s birth to one’s fellow-man so that he, too, may fully realize his aspirations? Surely, this is an indisputable guarantee of good faith.

I want to draw a fourth comparison between 1934 and the present time. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Edenvale referred to this when he said that it was a pity that we were not doing this in a spirit of unanimity. It is a particular shame that this should be the case. Strangely enough, it was a virtually unanimous House that voted in favour of the Status Act in 1934. There were only nine dissenting voices; not even a sufficient number to enforce a division. Those people included Mr. Coulter, Mr. Duncan Burnside, Col. Stallard and others. Even people like Mr. Leslie Blackwell, who recently died a Prog, voted in favour of the Status Act. Mr. Patrick Duncan—although he did so for other reasons—voted on the same side as Advocate J. G. Strijdom. Mr. Stuttaford voted on the same side as Advocate C. R. Swart. Mr. Hofmeyr voted on the same side as Dr. N. J. van der Merwe, and General Smuts voted on the same side as Gen. Hertzog and Dr. D. F. Malan. They regarded that as a new dawn on the growing up process of Boer and Briton in South Africa. It was regarded as a further step in the peaceful process of evolution which was taking place in South Africa.

Reference was made to Lord Asquith who was still of the opinion in 1911 that the British Government alone was responsible for the foreign policy of the “Empire”. In 1918 this was followed by an invitation to South Africa to sign the Peace Treaty of Versailles as an independent State.

There was also a fifth characteristic illuminating the circumstances surrounding the Status Act of 1934, and this was that there were pitfalls, pitfalls which we have avoided completely by means of this legislation, as well as by the factual position, to the advantage of both South Africa and the Transkei. The Status Act retained our ties with British Royal House. Prof. Noel Baker said the following at the time—

Words which make a dyed-in-the-wool Republican thrill with sheer delight, are the following words of Mr. Leslie Blackwell—

In this way, because of the strong disagreement concerning the divisibility of the Throne, the right to secession, as it was called at the time, and the question of dual nationality or citizenship, the Status Act carried in itself, even before the birth of the UP, the germ of its downfall. This was the beginning of the dispute between Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts and the real issue was the interpretation of the Status Act, which caused the UP to be split from top to bottom in 1939. This matter dominated the political scene from 1934 to 1939. Unification should in fact have been expedited by this, but the whole movement was lying in shatters. The Bill which is before this House today, is not chained to ideas to dual loyalty and allegiance to a foreign monarch. Here we have the birth of a new, sovereign republic, in no way subservient to South Africa as far as its domestic or foreign policy is concerned, not associated in a commonwealth, but an ally of South Africa because of an unforced bond of friendship, economic interdependence and mutual respect.

Mr. Speaker, Government members have spoken with enthusiasm about constitutional development and the Transkei. The last member to speak also did this, and referred at length to the Statute of Westminster and the Status Act. He also said that Duncan voted with Strijdom, that Stuttaford voted with somebody else and that Smuts voted with Hertzog. I would like to point out that Strijdom voted with Duncan and that the others voted with Stuttaford. The United Party was in power when that legislation was passed, and these members voted together.

Sir, no one doubts that this is an important piece of legislation. I agree with the hon. member. It is important because this is the start of the break-up of the territory previously known as the Union of South Africa, and which is now the Republic of South Africa. This is a forerunner of further steps the Government will be taking. This is in fact the experiment and a guide for their next adventures.

For members of this House, except for myself, and for everybody else living outside the area, what happens in the Transkei is of academic interest. For us who live in the area, however, it is a matter of direct and major concern. If there is a breakdown in administration, for instance, because of an exodus of White officials and technicians or because of breakdowns in relationships between the two Governments, the people who will be most affected will be the people living in the Transkei. To the general public and to other members of this House the concern will be no greater than in the event of a breakdown in the relations with any of the country’s neighbours across our borders. For those living in the Transkei, it will, however, be vastly different. When I say this, I do not mean that there will of necessity be a breakdown in relations or that there will be a breakdown in administration, but unfortunately the omens at present are not very propitious.

It is incredible that the hon. the Minister, in introducing this Bill, did not refer to the speech made by the Chief Minister of the Transkei at Lady Frere over the weekend. The whole tenor of that speech was hostile and there were two hot potatoes, one which concerned citizenship and the other which concerned land. I do not intend analysing the provisions for citizenship in this Bill or in the Transkei draft Bill. Speakers on this side of the House have dealt with that aspect thoroughly. What I do want to say, however, is that there is a dispute. It may be a misunderstanding; I do not know, but there is no doubt about it that there is confrontation. This confrontation began long before this Bill was introduced. In fact, it appeared as soon as the draft constitution for the Transkei was published in the Transkei Gazette. Government members are inclined to gloss over the speeches and interviews given by Chief George Matanzima in London. They were relying on a new agreement made by the Chief Minister of the Transkei with our Minister, providing for a board to settle disputes. They cannot, however, afford to ignore Chief George’s sentiments any longer, because Chief Kaiser made it quite clear at Lady Frere that he and his Cabinet support everything that Chief George says. We see in the papers that he is in fact to be given a ticker-tape welcome when he returns to the Transkei, so pleased are the people with him and what he did overseas. I understand that in July there is to be a meeting of the Transkei Assembly, when no doubt they will amend their draft legislation in order to make provision for this board.

They may, however, also make other provisions. At present there are two criteria for citizenship to be applied, in terms of our constitution and in terms of the Bill which is still to be passed by the Transkei legislature. The Transkei might severely restrict the class of people who can become citizens. Chief Kaiser made it quite clear that he is not receiving deportees without jobs or homes. This is consistent with the attitude he has adopted all along. The hon. the Minister will remember that when the villages of Dimbaza and Sada for displaced persons were established in the Ciskei, Chief Kaiser made it quite clear that he would not stand for anything like that in the Transkei. If any people were to be sent back there, they had to have jobs and homes. It is idle for the hon. the Minister merely to state that if any of the Blacks find themselves stateless, it will not be our fault. We are not in the same position as Germany, France or other countries which rely on foreign migratory labour. They can lay down the terms according to which these people enter their country, but we have hundreds of thousands of Transkeians who are at present living in so-called White areas in the Republic of South Africa, and we will have to deal with them. If we deny them citizenship and they are refused it by the Transkei, we shall be making South Africans stateless.

Who are the people who are becoming troublesome?

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

My time is very limited and I shall be glad if the hon. member will wait until I have finished my speech. It is the young people in the Bantu townships who are becoming troublesome. They are not going to be satisfied merely with the sop of receiving Transkeian citizenship. Unfortunately, Sir, the conflict between this Government and the Transkei Minister is not only confined to this question because land has also now entered the dispute. Kaiser Matanzima had the following to say at Lady Frere—

He said further—

He went on to say the following—

What should also be a worry to the Government, in relation to the Bantustan concept, is a report in Monday’s Burger, in which Chief Mangope is reported as having warned that: “Oorlog kan kom oor grond.” Therefore there is another bone of contention. Chief Kaiser also had the following to say—

He then went on—

He is speaking about his own people—

Reading or listening to that speech by a Black leader who supports Government policy, it shows quite clearly that our criticism of Government policy in the past is justified. This policy does not and never will cater for the Blacks living in so-called White South Africa. The mere setting aside of land in terms of the 1936 legislation for Black occupation will only end in bitterness and strife. A completely new approach is required.

The Chief Minister also criticized the Whites in the Transkei for having approached the Government by way of a petition for the appointment of a Select Committee. He said they should have gone to him. However, the hon. the Chief Minister must realize that a great deal of money is involved. Numbers of people have been waiting for the acceptance of offers made by them to this Government, not only for months, but for years. He must also know that the Whites have been told by this Government that it is this Government which will cater for them. All they have asked for is that this Government should, by legislation, ensure their rights and the responsibility of this Government towards them. All they get is a contract between the Government of the Transkei and this Government, and a reliance on the White Paper of 1964. All it says is that the Trust will buy land for those who are to be compensated as well as farms which are to be added to the Transkei for quota requirements. Where does the Trust get its money? In terms of that agreement the Trust will pay, but the Trust will get R3½ million this year and an undefined amount in Government securities for utilization for the purpose of buying land. That is not sufficient. The White Paper merely says that properties may be bought by the Trust at prices as may be approved by the Minister. In the meantime they may not even let their properties without the permission of the Transkeian Government and this Minister. In the House recently I quoted the example of a widow who owns property in Butterworth which she is not allowed to let, but for which she has to pay rates as well as bond interest. There is no provision in any agreement with the Transkei Government or anywhere else in respect of the period within which the Government will buy these properties. We are at the mercy of the Government.

I know that if the Government did legislate it could be said that any future Government could simply repeal that legislation, but that would have to be done publicly and that would show up the mala fides of that future Government. There is no guarantee that the properties will be bought by the Government. I take to task the hon. member for Aliwal North who, in an interview with the Despatch, said that the Government had carried out its promise over the last 13 years. Does the hon. member know that the Government could not carry out its promises and that that is why it had to introduce a priority scheme? He ought to know that there are people there who have been waiting for years for the Government to buy them out. He knows very well that the farmers living on the borders of my constituency are pestering him because they are worried about their position. How much more worried must my people feel who live in that area?

I do not intend repeating all the reasons I gave when I moved a motion earlier, but the Prime Minister—and I am sorry to see that he is not here—in an interjection said that the Whites could look to the Government. They do not really want to have to look to the Government. They are not beggars pleading at the table of the rich man for a few crumbs. They are fellow-citizens of the hon. the Prime Minister, who have been discarded. I want to express my disappointment that the hon. the Prime Minister would not even meet the deputation which wanted to come and see him on behalf of the White people to put their case to him.

I make no apology for raising this matter again. In my maiden speech in 1948 I dealt with the position of the Whites in the Transkei because I feared for their future under the Nationalist Party Government. I have raised their problems year after year in this House, and my fears were not groundless. We have been betrayed. The seriousness of their position is that if there should in future be any confrontation between the two Governments, they will be the people who will be in the middle. I do not say for one moment that Chief Kaiser will take retaliatory action against blameless people, but one never knows who his successor may be. He will not be there for ever. So we have to beware of what lies in store for us.

I have spoken about property-owners, but there are others who are vitally affected also by this constitutional development. I refer to municipal employees. At present they belong to the employees’ association SAAME, which intervenes on their behalf and protects their rights. After the Transkei becomes independent they will not have this protection any more. Now they have to choose as to what happens to them. They have been negotiating with this Government for 18 months and to say the least, they are very disappointed and disgusted at the tardiness with which this Government has dealt with their representations. They were told that they would get the replies to all their questions by 18 April and I understand that they have not got it yet. Now, they will have to choose. They can either become civil servants and be seconded to the Transkei or they can become Transkei citizens and join the Transkei Civil Service.

Municipal people?

Yes, municipal people. If they become civil servants, they will be able to join the Public Service Pension Fund. There will be disadvantages connected with this as well as advantages, but their difficulty is that if they transfer and they then subsequently find that they do not like conditions in the Transkei and want to get out, they cannot be transferred to other positions of like nature because the Civil Service does not have any other positions of that nature, and if they resign from the service and take up employment with a local authority in the Republic, they lose all their pension contributions; at least, they will not lose them, but they are not allowed to join the provincial fund again. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to go into this question because the question of pension rights affects them and they feel very strongly about it.

There is also another class of municipal employee who is affected. To become a public servant in the Republic you have to be a South African citizen. Now there are technicians and engineers, professional men, employed by the municipalities in the Transkei, who are not South African citizens. These people will find themselves without employment if they cannot transfer to the Civil Service. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give special consideration to their position because if these people leave, or if there is a breakdown in negotiations and officials are dissatisfied and leave the Transkei, there will be a breakdown in essential services which can have very serious effects in the Transkei. This is causing great concern to the municipalities concerned.

Then there are other matters of importance on which we should be given information. The agreements given to us by the department, agreements which are to be entered into by the Government, are still under consideration; there are still 21 agreements that we have not seen and which are under consideration. There are some very important agreements amongst those. I can think of two especially, the one being in relation to the employment of citizens of the Transkei in South Africa. That is a very important matter and in this connection Chief Kaiser has already made certain threats at Lady Frere. The second is the agreement on financial relations. Both of these can be very contentious matters. We know that the Transkei is not viable and will have to rely for many years on subsidies from this Government, or contributions from this Government. If there is going to be any confrontation in the future, and the Government of the Republic holds out as a threat the withdrawal of its funds for administration, one can realize that the position can become very dangerous. It is a very serious matter. I submit that we should have been told what agreements have been made with the Transkei. There should be some permanent agreement setting out the basis upon which the contributions will be made towards the administration in the future.

I am probably more concerned than any other MP here with the peaceful co-existence of the two States, the Republic of South Africa and the Transkei. That is why I have raised matters here which I consider can lead to confrontation. I know it is too late now to call upon the hon. the Minister to withdraw this Bill and to hold it over until he and the Chief Minister of the Transkei are at one on all issues. I say that it is a great pity that we are going into this change whilst there is disagreement between the two main characters as to what is to be involved in future. All I can hope is that common sense will prevail and that in future negotiations, both sides will face up to the realities of the situation and appreciate the dangers which lie ahead if any precipitate action is taken. Also, there will have to exist in the Republic and the Transkei a respect by ordinary citizens, one for the other, realizing that any thoughtless action or word could in fact start an international incident.

We cannot stop this Bill now. I know it will be passed. However, if I can help in any way in the smooth running of the new State, I shall certainly do so. I wish the Chief Minister and his brother, Chief George, with whom I have been closely associated for a number of years, success in their new adventure. I trust that their concern will be for the welfare of all the inhabitants of the Transkei, a country which we have all learned to love.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am sorry that I could not attend the discussion in connection with this Bill from the start due to official duties elsewhere. However, I listened with interest to the contributions of various members on both sides of the House. I should like to return to a few points raised by the hon. member for Griqualand East. I think that he reported correctly that there was a degree of concern among people living in the Transkei, specifically in Port St. Johns, about their future when the Transkei becomes independent in October. Furthermore he gave certain quotations from speeches by Chief Minister Matanzima. I should also like to return to these later on, although I have already pointed out at the outset that I have certain reservations about those reports, particularly about certain Press reports concerning what the Chief Minister and his brother, Mr. George Matanzima, supposedly said.

Last night I had the privilege of meeting one of the Ministers of the Transkeian Cabinet, on the occasion of the take-over of mission hospitals in the Transkei, and I also met a lot of the members of the Legislative Assembly there. I must honestly say that I was not under the impression that there was any feeling of tension amongst those people with respect to their coming independence. I did not notice any unfriendly feeling amongst those people with respect to the Republic’s contribution towards having that country declared independent. On the contrary; I noticed that there was a certain amount of embarrassment amongst those members as to certain reports concerning what the two Matanzima brothers were supposed to have said.

I answered a question which was put to me by students, in this way. We are quite aware of the fact that many difficult questions are put to these people both abroad and in South Africa. Those difficult questions can very easily be put in the following way, namely, ‘ ‘After all, you are nothing but yes-men for the Government of the Republic of South Africa.” Then, if those people, from a feeling of self-respect, say the following to their questioners: “Of course we are not mere yes-men for the Government of the Republic of South Africa”, then immediately it becomes a confrontation with the Government of the Republic! I gained the impression from that conversation with members of the Transkeian Parliament, that they are embarrassed with respect to those reports which make out that it is with the greatest reluctance that they approach the independence of their own country.

Before I answer a few points which the hon. member for Griqualand East raised, I want to make a few other remarks. I shall not try to hazard any statement on the subject of citizenship, which hon. members have debated here. I think that hon. members, inter alia, the hon. member for Vereeniging, the hon. member for Brakpan and other hon. members whose speeches I was able to hear, put this side of the House’s view on this matter in a very brilliant, conclusive way. I also think they did so in a very responsible and thorough manner.

I do not think anybody denies that with this legislation, we have reached a watershed in the political history of South Africa. I do not think that anyone on this side of the House or in the parties on that side of the House deny that fact. We on this side, of course, feel differently about its implications. I think hon. members on that side of the House realize that if this legislation goes through and the Transkei becomes independent in October this year, we shall have accomplished a task that will have a formative effect on history. I think they realize that we shall then have made history and that South Africa will never be the same again. [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side are naturally afraid of this. Their approach in this connection is like that of the young minister who thought of a text in the Bible to encourage him when he felt extremely nervous, and the text which came to mind, he quoted as follows: “Do not believe, only fear.” I think that this is the state of mind with hon. members on that side of the House. For them it is a question of: “Do not believe, only fear.” I read the fear in the speech of the hon. member for Griqualand East as well as in the speeches of other members.

However, this side of the House is not unaware of the problems to be ironed out with regard to the coming independence of the Transkei. We are not, however, pessimistic.

After all, over the years we have given thorough consideration to the implications of the standpoint of this party, and those implications, as it were, developed into this legislation, and into the draft constitution of the Transkei as submitted to the Transkei’s own Legislative Assembly. As I said, this legislation at present before Parliament is historical, and we see it as a positive development.

The question is not so much whether in 1913, 1936 or 1948 we spelled out precisely what we wanted to do in 1976. I do not think that anyone will maintain that we as long ago as said in 1948 that there would be an independent homeland like the Transkei. We did not say so, but certain statements were made as long ago as 1913, 1936 and 1948, statements which implied only one direction, and this is that this act, namely the acceptance of this legislation, had to come about.

There are people opposite who allege that these developing countries have not made very appropriate statements about their own nationalism or independence in the past. One is tempted to ask: So what? Allow me to use an example. We all know the course of development amongst children in a family. For instance, at a certain stage a child will say that he or she will never marry; he or she will always remain with mummy and daddy. However, once the daughter reaches maturity or when the son is an adult, and they want to start their own home and choose a life companion, who will tell that child: No, do you not remember when you were 13 years old, and said that you were not at all interested in marrying? Who will ever approach the matter in this way?

Even if these nations did not, initially, have an articulate national striving, surely that is no longer the case today. After all, recently we have had statements which definitely indicate that these people have become aware of the one road which will bring peace to South Africa, and this is the road along which each will be able to exercise the greatest possible right to self-determination. We consider the exercise of that greatest possible right to self-determination as based on the fact that those peoples will have to be led to independence. This is how we see it. Naturally, hon. members on the other side of the House differ from us.

What does adulthood require of us and what does coming of age demand of a people? It is in the light of this question that we have to judge the Status of the Transkei Bill. Here a nation has reached maturity, has come of age. It is no longer at the puberty stage of a child in which it makes certain statements which are later revoked. It has come of age and reached that stage at which its coming of age finds expression in a particular statement about its right to self-determination and independence. I shall make a quotation in this connection later on.

If somebody asks me where I want to be counted with respect to the legislation before the House—whether I want to be counted amongst those who helped other nations force open the road to full political self-determination and independence, or amongst those who fabricate and drag in difficulties to lay in the path of independence of nations—it is a very easy choice for me. I choose the deed and state of mind according to which I help other peoples to be able to reach self-determination and independence, as my people and our broader White community reached that full exercising of their right to self-determination. Surely this is not news. After all, it is a truth which was expressed more than 26 years ago by the previous Prime Minister—at that time he was still Minister of Native Affairs—when he said that just as the Whites hold sway in their own area, he also wanted the non-White peoples to hold sway—he added “baasskap” between brackets—in their own areas. After all, this is our standpoint. Surely it is not a phenomenon that has cropped up today; indeed it has come a long way already.

I say my choice is very easy when it comes to this. I am Nationalist and I think I recognize a Nationalist when I meet one. In the same way I recognize a Black nationalist when I meet him. I understand his aspirations, and because I understand his aspirations, I am prepared and am engaged, in practice, in helping him to fulfil those aspirations.

What about the Nico Malan? [Interjections.]

That is now the most ridiculous, meaningless attempt at escape those hon. members have made. Last year I made a speech in the House about that very matter. Hon. members need not think that there is any difference in opinion about that speech as far as my party is concerned. The hon. member for Green Point may just as well go and read that speech once again. I can assure him that that speech is endorsed 100% by everyone in this party.

The hon. members are dragging up that matter because they do not want to hear the truth about the Transkei.

For me the issue is the consequences and implications of full nationhood, of full nationalism. I found the following in Webster’s dictionary—

I think that this is a meaningful definition of nationalism. A Dutch author refers to a nation and says that a nation is a group of people, organized in a unique political system, or desiring such a political system, who consider themselves a unit on the basis of a past they have lived through together and on the basis of a certain homogeneity of language, culture and descent, and who want to maintain that unity.

One can also give other definitions of it, but against the background of such a definition from both the English-speaking and Dutch-speaking world it seems to me as if one can ask without any hesitation what the position is in connection with the Transkei.

I find clause 57 of the draft constitution of the Transkei interesting, and when I read it, it is not, in my opinion, necessary that such a fuss be kicked up about citizenship, because all the categories mentioned in that clause, cover—I do not want to venture a precise percentage—almost 100% of all people about whom there is no dispute and who may be accepted, not only by us, but also by the Transkei, as citizens of the Transkei, and who will indeed be citizens of the Transkei after 26 October this year, after the Transkei becomes independent. It is true there may be certain cases of difficulty, and hon. members on the other side are very welcome to point out such cases. We have cases of difficulty concerning race classification between White and Brown. Nobody denies this. However, this does not mean that identifiable groups of people, for example a White nation, the Brown people and Black peoples in their different contexts and with their various ways of life, do not exist.

Just recently, on 6 May 1976, Chief Minister Matanzima said—

In this way he simply brushes the UP out of the way. He went on to say—

This is a pertinent statement with respect to those people, who are his people, who had certain aspirations and who do not intend to participate in a power-sharing pattern at all.

He spoke of a politically oppressive situation.

Chief Minister Matanzima rejected the idea that there was one undivided South Africa where everyone could have equal rights. Let me quote another piece from the same speech. He went on to say—

I do not believe it is necessary to go further into the matter.

I want to make a few remarks in connection with the position of Whites in the Transkei. The White Citizen’s Association suggested that we should determine by means of legislation what the position there will be. But the position of those people is, after all, not at all indefinite. In this connection, I should like to refer hon. members to the White Paper of 1964, Act No. 4 of 1976 and also to an agreement which, if I am not mistaken, was laid upon the table, an agreement between the Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa and the Cabinet of the Transkei. That agreement concerns these very matters. For all practical purposes a decision has already been made. It has only to be signed.

What does it provide?

If the hon. member does not know what it provides, I shall have to read it to him.

It does not give a guarantee.

How should it not give a guarantee? The Government of the Republic of South Africa refers to the White Paper of 1964 and goes on to say—

Yes, like in the case of Port St. Johns.

Seeing that the hon. member is now referring to Port St. Johns, I shall briefly make a few statements about it. Firstly, I want to say that it is financially and administratively impossible to buy all land and properties from Whites in the Transkei before 26 October.

Then where is the guarantee?

Secondly, it is not realistic or in the interests of the White owners in the Transkei to have their properties valued before 26 October, since it is uncertain precisely where and when purchases will be made. Surely this is self-evident.

Furthermore, the Government intends to speed up the purchase of land there. It is already doing so. According to information available to me, during the past 10 years R36 million has been spent on the purchase of properties in the Transkei. During the financial year 1975-’76, R7 322 000 was spent on the purchase of properties in the Transkei. R3,5 million has already been spent for the same purpose this year. Over and above that, several millions of rands—I am not going to give you the precise amount now—will be applied in the coming year towards the purchase of land in the Transkei, and that includes Port St. Johns. I can assure the hon. member that a table of precedence is being drawn up according to which it will be determined which people are in a particularly difficult situation. According to an agreement with the Cabinet of the Transkei the assurance was gained that, after independence, the process of land purchases would simply continue. The guarantee for this is the undertaking by this Government, an undertaking it has complied with since the years when this White Paper was published. This applies to Port St. Johns too.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister over what period those properties are anticipated to be bought? How long will it take to complete the purchase process?

Mr. Speaker, I shall not say that my time has expired because I should like to answer that question. The Government has not envisaged any specific period of time with respect to completing the purchases of land in the Transkei. It is not certain precisely how long this will continue, but the decision has already been taken.

Go and ask Madam Rose! Let him look into his crystal ball!

The decision has already been taken to make still further money available this year, in order to purchase a number of additional properties by means of a cash basis of 40%, the take-over of mortgage bonds and the issuing of State securities. This is still going to take place this year. With a view to a basic minimum amount of R20 000 in cash, it is possible that a large number of people may still be bought out in Port St. Johns this year. I can assure hon. members that the process is being expedited. Since my time has expired, I shall now leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister has done nothing whatever to allay the growing astonishment with which I have been listening to this debate, because speaker after speaker on the Government side—from the hon. Minister up, or down, as the case may be, depending on how he rates himself—insists on ignoring the vital issue of citizenship in this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that just a few cases, a few borderline cases, will in fact be affected by the citizenship clause of this Bill. Obviously, the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know what he is talking about, because something like 1,3 million Xhosas of Transkeian origin who live outside the Transkei, are in fact going to be affected by this Bill.

Sir, it is perfectly true that all those people were in fact made citizens of the Transkei by the 1963 Transkei Constitution Act. It is also true that every African throughout the country was made a citizen of whatever homeland he was connected with—whether tribal or otherwise—by the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970. However, what hon. members have forgotten, is that both those Acts gave dual citizenship to all those people. Dual citizenship! And that is the issue. The Bill which we are considering today, is going to strip the 1,3 million Transkeians—or Xhosa people of Transkeian origin—of their dual citizenship. They are going to be left with only Transkeian citizenship.

It is not just the borderline cases which are concerned. It concerns every one of those people. For the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us that he had discussions in the Transkei, or wherever he was, with certain Ministers or Deputy Ministers about independence, is, as far as I am concerned, not indicative of what those people think about their being deprived of their South African citizenship by this Bill. While they may want independence, they do not want to be stripped of their citizenship.

I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell this House whether he discussed the issue of citizenship with those people. Did he discuss with them the fact that they would be losing their dual citizenship in terms of this Bill? I am prepared to say that he did not. [Interjections.] That is the issue. That is the basic issue, nothing else. Hon. members of this House are apparently completely unaware of the reaction of Xhosas and other Africans to the whole issue of citizenship. They are completely nonchalant about the whole question, blissfully unaware about all the pitfalls of the citizenship clause.

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

No, you may not as I have no time. Just over two months ago … I wonder, Sir, whether I can have some quiet. I have exactly 20 minutes to put over my whole case. Just over two months ago I asked the hon. the Minister whether agreement had been reached with the Transkeian Government on the question of the citizenship of Bantu of Transkeian origin born outside or living permanently outside the Transkei and if so, what were the terms of the agreement. In what must rank as an absolute master-piece of understatement, he replied that citizenship of the Transkei was included in the list of matters receiving attention. I ask of you, Sir! Just like that! It was included just as an item on the agenda!

Have hon. members read what the Chief Minister of the Transkei has been saying recently? The hon. the Deputy Minister cast doubt on the truth of the report? Does he deny the truth of the report of what the Chief Minister of the Transkei said at Lady Frere, as quoted by the hon. member for Griqualand East? Does he deny what is purported to have been said by the Chief Minister when he spoke as Glen Grey when he said that unless the Bill presently before our Parliament was amended to fall into line with the Transkeian Constitution on the citizenship clause, great difficulties and problems would arise. He went further and said the Transkei would not become a dumping ground for all the Blacks in the Republic who speak Xhosa or Sotho. If the hon. the Deputy Minister does not believe that, I wonder whether he will at least accept editorials, which after all cannot be misquoted. In an editorial which was written only this weekend by the editor of The World, a newspaper by which, as everybody in this House knows, the hon. the Prime Minister sets great store. I want to quote to the hon. the Deputy Minister some of the words used by the editor of The World. He said—

Who said that?

The editor who wrote the editorial. He went on—

And this the hon. the Deputy Minister should listen to—

Government speakers persist in treating the citizenship issue as a side issue. Instead of thrashing out this vitally important issue, they treated us to a passionate eulogy about the enormous value attached to ethnic identity by the Xhosas and by other African people in South Africa. Every single Nationalist speaker has done that. The thought that immediately sprang to mind was that if this ethnic identity was so valued by these people, why was it that so many threats have to be used against them to persuade them to take out their certificates of citizenship? Why has so much cajolery to be used in order to persuade them to take out their citizenship certificates?

Under the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, every Bantu became a citizen of his territorial authority area, and was thereby entitled to take out a certificate of citizenship. That was six years ago. I want to know whether there have been hundreds of thousands of eager Bantu queueing up to collect their citizenship certificates, these badges of ethnic purity which are according to the hon. the Minister, so valued as a status symbol by the Bantu people? I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: How many Africans in the urban areas have bothered to take out citizenship certificates which are supposed to be of such great value to the Africans? One would have thought that thousands would have queued up, and after all, if anybody is used to queueing up for things, it is the African in the urban areas. I am prepared to bet that hardly any Africans in the urban areas have bothered to take out these status symbols. Indeed, the hon. the Minister was very vague about this when I asked him a question in the House. The truth of the matter is that hundreds of thousands, indeed, one might say millions of Africans, particularly those living in the White areas, do not cherish tribal identity above all things as hon. members on that side of the House appear to think. They do not certainly identify with the rural homelands. What they do cherish is the right to have a job, the right to have a home and the right to a family life in the urban areas. A recent Market Research survey indicated that 58% of the urban Blacks see South Africa as their homeland. I might say that they are entitled to do so because the two Acts, which are the forerunners to the Bill, contain specific sections enshrining their citizenship of the Republic. One only has to look at section 7(3) of the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963, and at section 2(4) of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970 to realize this. I shall only read out one of these sections, since they are almost identical. Section 7(3) of the Transkei Constitution Act states the following—

That is exactly my point; this is dual citizenship. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: What happens, after this Bill passes through this House and through the Other Place and is proclaimed as an Act of Parliament if, after 26 October, the Transkei is not given recognition internationally? What happens to those people who have not been recognized internationally? How do they travel? What is their status in international law, since according to this Bill, they are going to be stripped of their dual citizenship?

In 1971 it was estimated that 4 500 000 Africans—there are certainly more now—were living in the urban areas. It is estimated to be well over five million at the moment. It is also estimated that of those people more than 3,2 million are permanently settled in the cities and towns. I am not even mentioning—these poor people are hardly ever mentioned in this House—the three to four million Africans who are permanently resident in White rural areas in South Africa. As usual, they have been ignored entirely. We have heard of how a poll was taken in the Transkei as to whether or not the people wanted independence. In fact, it was a completely insignificant poll. The poll taken of Africans in the urban areas was even less significant, because there was a total poll of 8 900 out of these millions of people who are living in the urban areas. What kind of poll, may I ask, was taken of the Africans living in White rural areas in South Africa, in order to ascertain whether they wanted to become citizens of an independent Transkei? I want to point out that approximately 30% of the nearly half a million houses in Bantu residential areas in White South Africa, according to what the hon. the Minister himself told this House last year, are already the property of the Bantu—and I quote him—“all acquired under the long-lease system which was discontinued at the end of 1967”. In 1973 we had Deputy Minister Janson telling us that 79% of the Africans living in Johannesburg were being housed on a family basis. The point I want to make is that those people are permanently resident in the urban areas, they are not there temporarily. These people have no yearning for identification with a homeland, but in an effort to transform this myth into reality, the hon. the Minister of course intends to turn the screw in order to get the urban Blacks to take out their certificates of citizenship, these status symbols which one would have thought they would have taken out voluntarily long ago. Other speakers have mentioned the methods used to persuade Africans. We know about the certificates now needed for the 30 year leasehold for houses, we know all about the traders and professional peoples’ licences that are going to be required to be accompanied by citizenship certificates, and we know that every African child born in an urban area now has to be identified by his parents with a homeland if he is to obtain a birth certificate.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he grossly misled this House last year and, what is much worse, he grossly misled the African people when he announced the concessions on the 30 year leases and the concessions for traders in the urban areas, because he made absolutely no mention at the time that it would be essential for those people to take out certificates of citizenship before they would be granted the 30 year leases or traders’ licences. And now we have the hon. the Minister coming along with even more ominous words. In the Other Place he told Africans that those who did not accept citizenship had better watch out because they could easily be endorsed out of White South Africa into the homelands. He also told us in his Second Reading speech that if Africans did not take out their citizenship certificates, he would seriously have to consider whether such Bantu would be welcome in or allowed into the Republic of South Africa.

Shocking!

Of course it is shocking; it is nothing less than blackmail. Why should these methods be necessary if the Africans are longing for identification with their homelands and with their ethnic groups?

Just as ominous to my mind was the speech made by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke yesterday when he suggested that section 10(1) of the Urban Areas Act could be scrapped and that privileges then could be granted to Africans which would put section 10 privileges in the shade. I think this is an appalling suggestion. I do not believe that one can dare think of depriving people of rights which they have enjoyed for many years, and suggest to them that they will get other privileges if they do what the Government suggests. I warn the Government that it must not tamper with the section 10(1) rights in the Urban Areas Act. They are greatly valued, and it is dynamite to tamper with those rights. I hope the hon. the Minister, when he stands up to reply to this debate, will repudiate the suggestion made by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke.

The hon. member for Vereeniging mentioned that the rights of foreigners were analogous to the rights which people would be enjoying under this Bill. The trouble with hon. members in the House is that they have no idea of what Africans in the urban areas have got to go through as far as influx control, obtaining the right to look for jobs, to remain in the urban areas and to get houses and to live with their families are concerned. If they did, they would not so lightly discard section 10 and they would not so lightly compare Africans in the urban areas with the foreigners who live in South Africa without any such problems.

Finally, I want to say that this Bill is being closely observed, not only by Transkeian Blacks, but also by Blacks in every single ethnic group in South Africa. It is most particularly being observed by other homeland leaders, that is homeland leaders other than Chief Matanzima, who is also certainly observing the Bill with the greatest interest. What encouragement does the Government think is going to be given to other homeland leaders to ask for independence in view of the citizenship clause and the loss of dual citizenship? Does the Government really think that Chiefs Mangope, Buthelezi and Ntsanwisi and the other homeland leaders are going to fall over themselves in order to be next in line to subject their citizens to deprivation of South African citizenship? And yet, unless this is done, the whole exercise in the long run is worth nothing at all. After all, that is what Dr. Verwoerd’s great vision of 1959 was all about. That, after all, is what the grand plan of apartheid is all about, that is to leave the White Republic of South Africa with a majority White population of some 4½ million people outnumbering the 2½ million Coloured persons and the ¾ million Indian people. It is the hat trick, the gigantic confidence trick, whereby 18 million Africans are going to be fragmented into their ethnic groups and into their homeland areas or, if resident in the White Republic, fragmented into nine or ten ethnic groups inside the White area of South Africa. And hey presto, now you see them and now you don’t, and South Africa has a White majority Government. The only trouble about this is that everybody has seen through this confidence trick. The Government is being too clever by half, and I believe that nobody is going to be taken in by this subterfuge. Independence per se is not something which we object to; it is the terms of independence that we object to, and if the Government can still see its way clear radically to amend the citizenship clause of this Bill, clause 6, then I might say the whole situation would take on a different complexion.

Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon again acted as though she has a special lease of wisdom in this House. She said that all speakers up to now have missed the most important and cardinal point in this legislation, i.e. citizenship. I want to ask the hon. member: Where has she been the past three days? If she had listened to this debate, she would have known what this debate was all about. She might probably say that not sufficient emphasis was placed on dual citizenship. She referred to the Act of 1963. But the Transkei Draft Constitution emphasizes this very question of citizenship. I think it is mentioned in Chapter VII, section 57. This stresses this very matter, but the hon. member now pretends that we have never noticed it. The people discussed it themselves and they themselves formulated what they wanted. But this is typical of the hon. member. She usually seizes upon exceptions and then tries to make those exceptions the rule. She also referred to the article in The World. That report is an exception, and I wonder who wrote that report for that editor. I think one should go into the matter a little. She went on to say that the Bantu do not cherish the things we have mentioned here. All they are interested in, is the jobs the Whites are giving them. I shall return to this aspect later. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Houghton does not know the heart and soul of the Bantu; she does not know their past and she does not know their way of expressing their feelings and their ethnic ties. The hon. member also had a great deal to say about the ethnic grouping, and I should also like to say a few words about that in a moment. But there is another important aspect in this whole debate which, to me, is as clear as a pikestaff. The question of citizenship is very important, but what is also important, is the sovereignty of a State. I think this was briefly referred to by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The sovereignty of any State which becomes independent is extremely important and so many authors on international law emphasize the sovereignty of any State which becomes independent. We notice in the preamble of this Bill serving before this House that mention is made of the desire of the people of the Transkei to become an independent State. They also express this desire in their own Bill. When reading the preamble of their Bill—it is an excellent preamble—one notices that this is quite clearly mentioned there. This also serves as a reply to many of the arguments we have had from that side of the House regarding the desire and the wishes of the people. They state, inter alia—

Sir, these are their own wishes they formulated in this preamble, and it is an excellent preamble. At the same time this reminds one that there is a desire for independence among states throughout the world. This was illustrated quite well by hon. members yesterday and the day before yesterday. The majority of these states came into being as a result of rebellion or war or through terrorism. It is the tendency in the world for nations to become independent, and now we have arrived at this situation that, here at the southern tip of Africa, a nation is receiving its independence without making use of any of these three methods. This desire has existed throughout the world during the past 30 years. Sir, it is being done here in faith, with co-operation and the acknowledgment of human dignity. The principle of sovereignty is stated quite clearly in section 1(1) of the Transkei Draft Constitution, as well as in clause 1(1) of the Bill serving before us now. Without this principle this debate would really have been meaningless. For that reason it is so important. When considering what certain authors on international law have written, we find that the following is said by one of the most important authors, Oppenheim, in Volume 1 of his International Law, 8th Edition, page 118—

He also states a few conditions for the existence of a state. In the first place, he mentions “a society of people”. On page 11 of the same publication Oppenheim states the following—

In other words, a group of people with a feeling of belonging together and with a desire. This is important. In the second place he also mentions a territory. He does not say what the size of the territory should be. He specifically says that it could even be a city. In this regard I can refer to the Vatican and also Monaco, which is very small. It makes no difference how big those states have to be. The hon. member for Lydenburg referred to numerous African states which are smaller than the Transkei. Oppenheim goes further and says that there should be a government, a government which may consist of only one or two representatives of the people. In the fourth place, he says that that government should be a sovereign government. Sovereignty is the supreme power. This we also find in clause 1(1) and clause 2(2) of the Bill. There should be an independent authority. In the strictest sense of the word sovereignty implies independence in every sense of the word, internally as well as externally.

We have another author, Brierly, who is well known to everyone. In his Law of Nations, 4th Edition, he puts sovereignty as one of the first principles of the independence of a state. He says the best methods to resist external threats against a State is to strengthen the authority structure. On page 8 Brierly quotes another very well-known author, a certain Jean Badin. I quote—

There are also other authors I do not want to quote here, inter alia, Thomas Hobbs and others. What I have quoted here, is what authors had to say on this matter. This is essential and this is a proven background which has been empirically proved through the centuries and of which one should take cognizance. When considering the theoretical side, we ask: What does the practical side tell us today as far as the pending independence of the Transkei is concerned? The desire exists. The wishes of the people exist. The request came from the inhabitants of that homeland. Several speakers have pointed out that such a request originated on their part. The hon. member for Port Natal, who is sitting in front of me here, referred several times to the voting which took place. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development also referred quite clearly yesterday to the voting which had taken place, to the request which originated on the part of the people to obtain independence for their country. The people are there and the territory is there. There is a sovereign government. Therefore all the elements are present for a State to become independent.

To deal briefly with the question of citizenship, I just want to point out that we have had the phenomenon in the debate so far that mountains were made out of molehills. The question of citizenship is quite clearly defined in clause 6 of the Bill. In chapter 7, section 57, of the Transkei Draft Constitution, it is quite clearly indicated who will be getting citizenship and who will not be getting citizenship. Virtually 99% of all the people of Transkei descent will get citizenship. This probably leaves approximately 63 000 in the Republic—the hon. member for Bloemfontein West yesterday also referred to this small number—who did not exercise their choice either way. Let us accept that there are 80 000 of them. Should this small number then dominate the wishes of the more than three million people? What is more important? Should the wishes of the larger number of people be complied with or should the wishes of this small number be complied with?

In the third place I want to point out that a citizenship board will be appointed by the Transkei Government and by this Government regarding that small number of people—a board with an equal number of representatives from the Transkei and the Republic of South Africa—in order to investigate the position of those cases and to see what is going to happen to them. What is going to happen to the stateless people if, eventually, a small number of stateless people do remain? Of course, they will enjoy no protection in terms of international law. This is obvious. They will be treated as if they are subjects of a foreign state. This is the position in terms of international law, and this is dealt with by Oppenheim on page 668 of the publication from which I quoted here. For that reason I think that this citizenship board will find a solution for those people through the co-operation of both governments.

I now want to come back to the ethnic groupings to which the hon. member for Houghton referred. Pride is probably one of the most important characteristics in every nation. If one has no pride, one has nothing. In other words, then one is a member of the United Party or a Progref. Pride is very important and it involves so many things. It involves the citizenship of a person. I want to quote an excellent example here of pride in respect of ethnic ties.

Because the Jews have never forgotten who they are or where they came from, they were in a position, through the centuries, to lose a great deal—their freedom, fatherland, and language—without losing themselves. They were able to maintain themselves because they retained their descent, their race and their history. Like members of any other nation the Jews have always and are still very proud of this. With this cherished heritage the Jews will remain Jews, even though they lose their common language and everything that goes with it. In the same way the Transkeian is also a member of a nation and likewise he has that pride and ethnic ties as well as a right to and a love for what is his own, and for that reason we should not begrudge him these things. What is more, he asked for these things.

One asks oneself: Why does the Opposition not want these people to have a country where they can start developing themselves? Nobody has in any way suggested that there is not going to be problems or teething troubles. There certainly will be. We have to prepare ourselves for that. However, a start is being made here with the development of a sovereign independent state with ethnic ties, a pride and everything that goes with it. As a matter of fact, our pride tells us that we are something and that we know where we came from and that we know where we are going. That is the most important aspect of all. The hon. member for Green Point also said yesterday that citizenship contains an element of loyalty. I agree with him. That is a fact. Everyone of us knows it. Of course, this also applies as far as the Transkeian is concerned. That loyalty and that citizenship have to develop within a nation. Of course, this is what we want to achieve through this legislation. Nations do not ask why they are there and why they differ from others. After all, that which is an integral part is never questioned. It is an in-born love for what is one’s own. We often hear the question: What is your profession? Where do you come from? Which nation do you belong to? In which country were you born? All this is part of God’s creation as ordained and for this reason we want this nation to have it too. That is why we are guiding them along this road. Every aspect of the issue to which I referred, is part of citizenship.

The people of the Transkei also want to be a people sui generis that takes part in world affairs. I wonder whether it has struck the Opposition that this sovereign independent state also wants to participate in world affairs, also wants to have a seat in UNO one day, also wants to be part of the society of nations in the world and wants its own flag and its own national anthem. All these factors engenders pride in a nation. If the Transkei had to remain part of the Republic of South Africa and therefore always have to be South African citizens, the citizens of the Transkei would have had to accept the flag of the Republic, they would have had to accept our national anthem and our coat of arms. They would have had to accept all these things, and it would engender no pride in them; it would not stimulate them or allow them to develop.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said yesterday—

We do not want the citizens of the Transkei to think that this legislation originated on the part of the Whites for the benefit of the Whites. All speakers on this side of the House who participated in the debate, proved quite clearly that the Transkei is becoming independent at the request of the people of the Transkei and that it has not been initiated by the Whites for the sake of the Whites only. Even the hon. member for Edenvale yesterday said that he accepts that the request for independence came from the Transkei Government. I think some hon. members of the Opposition are really living in the time of Rip van Winkle. They cannot understand these things; they cannot appreciate these things.

I know hon. members are always fearful when the word “nationalism” is being used, but nationalism is an integral part of every nation. It is by no means something new. Nationalism is also an integral part of ethnic groups. Nationalism includes many things. After all, it is a fact that every nation wants to recognize and remember its history, its traditions and its principles, and everything that goes with it. Every nation wants to honour its own heroes, it wants its own monuments and it wants to erect its own statues. The members of a nation find themselves in a common natural environment—they have been shaped there—and they resisted common enemies, something which resulted in the development of ethnicties. As a people we know all these things ourselves, because we experienced them in the past.

I notice that my time has almost expired, but I want to raise one final matter to which reference was also made by the hon. member for Houghton. She referred to international status. The Bill before the House provides for international status to be granted to the Transkei by the Republic. A state obtains international status in two ways, i.e. in a de facto and a de jure manner. In 1918 the Union of South Africa, which had no international status at that time because it was regarded as a dominion of Great Britain, became de factoindependent as a result of the fact that Gen. Smuts signed the Treaty of Versailles. South Africa, as a co-signatory, was then de factoacknowledged as an independent State. The hon. member for Brakpan pointed out quite clearly in which way the Republic was de jureacknowledged in the world through the Status Act, the Statute of Westminster and the Balfour Declaration. As the Republic has developed, so the Transkei will also develop and will be de facto and de jure acknowledged internationally as a sovereign, independent state. We also want the Transkei to become an independent state in future to take its place in the array of nations of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for Potgietersrus will forgive me if I do not react at once to what he said in connection with citizenship, sovereignty, and international status. I shall refer to all those concepts in the course of my speech.

†It seems that we are at the end of the most important stage of this Bill and of a debate which everyone in the House is agreed is one of the most important we have ever had in this Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. It is important because it heralds the first stage of the Nationalist Government’s long-term policy of seeking to solve the problems of our plural society by what I would describe as systematic abdications of sovereignty over large portions of our common fatherland. South Africa is still today the common fatherland of all our people. No matter what political sophistries are used, no matter what play is made with historical, ethnic and constitutional concepts, the people of South Africa have long regarded the country between the Limpopo and the Cape as their own country. For 66 years it has been a single unitary state with a single nationality and a single citizenship. I use the words “sovereignty”, “citizenship”, “fatherland” and “nationality” with due regard to their ancient origins and also to their modern usages. When I speak of abdication, as I shall in a moment, I use it in its precise meaning of formally disowning or surrendering ownership or authority and responsibility.

Having said that, let us make no bones about this matter but at least be honest with one another and not play with words this afternoon. When we debate a matter of such fundamental importance to the future of South Africa, let us be clear about what we mean. Whatever the ultimate merits or demerits whatever the ultimate harm or good we may do this week in Parliament, let us be perfectly clear about the fact that we are discussing three things: The first is an act of territorial abdication; the second is an act of political abdication; and the third is an act of moral abdication. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, it is the moral abdication of any obligation to satisfy the needs of all our people within a single state. Those are the three abdications we are discussing in this debate and we shall continue to do so this week. I do not suppose for a moment that calling things by their right names—calling a spade, shall I say, a bloody shovel—will ever divert this Government from its obsessional course of going ahead with this Bill.

In other countries the pages of history—there has been much reference to history in this debate—tell of vast sacrifices to defend the precious soil of the fatherland. Immense costs have been incurred. Whole generations of young men have sacrificed their lives in the defence of a national inheritance. We, in modern times, have admired the State of Israel. We have admired its determination not to give up one square inch of the fatherland, one square inch of its native soil, whatever the odds. They have done that despite the pressures on them, in their own area and internationally, to force them to do just that. Yet, here in South Africa we are being asked in this legislation to accept an act of blind faith, an act of final and irrevocable surrender of what we have and hold at the moment. In exchange for what? In exchange, I say, for a dogmatic delusion that has been unequalled in South African history since the days of Nongqause. I am talking about that Nongqause of whom the hon. member for Kuruman spoke yesterday. Nongqause was the Transkeian girl who dreamed that if the people destroyed all they had, their gods would grant them a rich recompense. Hon. members know the history. Today we are being asked to approve a Nongqause Bill for South Africa. [Interjections.] We are asked to surrender and to abandon all we have built up over the years and to accept instead an improbable dream, something born of fear, desperation and despair and which the whole civilized world rejects.

It is interesting to look at the origin of this White Nongqause dream here in South Africa. It is not the origin which the hon. the Minister pointed out. It is not the origin we have heard hon. members trace. It was originally a purely academic concept. It was rejected by the late Dr. Malan. I heard him reject it in this House. It was rejected by Mr. Strijdom. I also heard him reject it in this House. What is more, it was rejected by the late Dr. Verwoerd when he first became Prime Minister. It was rejected by him in no uncertain terms, when he was still Minister of Native Affairs, as being entirely out of touch with the realities of South Africa. I remember very clearly Dr. Malan, as Prime Minister, moving a motion in this House for which he sought the support of the Opposition, not for the separate development of Basutoland, Swaziland or Bechuanaland—the three High Commission Territories—but on the grounds that it would fulfil an historic promise to consolidate South Africa into one unit. I remember it so well, Sir. The hon. member for Brits was here. He should remember it. That is probably why he has been so quiet in this debate. [Interjections.]

It was Mr. Strijdom who continued this policy and who insisted that the White man had both the determination and the right to maintain his domination over the whole of South Africa. As for Dr. Verwoerd, he at first strongly repudiated any proposal to divide the sovereignty of South Africa. He had deep personal quarrels with the leaders of Sabra on this very issue. I can remember when he made a speech to the Native Representative Council, before it was disbanded, and when he used the words, “What we want for ourselves in our area, we are prepared to give you in your area.” It was immediately interpreted as meaning independence for the Black homelands. However, he denied it in this House. He absolutely denied it; he refused to accept it. [Interjections.] Yes, it was one of the favourite questions at political meetings for a long time. He was strongly resistant, as Minister of Native Affairs, to the idea of interdependence or co-operation in southern Africa. He insisted that his department had no obligations outside the constitutional boundaries of South Africa itself.

Then came his change in 1959, after he became Prime Minister. In 1961—I remember so well the words he used here—he said: “Although it may bring grave conflict, we put again unequivocally the development of separate race States. The Bantu will develop to separate Bantu States. That is not something we would gladly have seen. It is a form of fragmentation, which we would not gladly have accepted if it had been within our power to avoid it.”

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that? He adopted that policy because of pressure from outside and nobody knows it better than that hon. member. He spoke in this House of “die druk van buite”.

It was because of the upsurge of self-determination. [Interjections.]

Sir, that would be extremely funny if this was not such an important debate. What happened? The industrial development of South Africa continued at great speed and the rural people of South Africa in the old tribal areas and in the White country areas moved increasingly to the new industrial growth points. They moved by thousands and eventually by millions and the traditional patterns of land occupation were destroyed, at least as far as the vast body of able-bodied male workers were concerned. The occupation of land on racial lines could never serve again as the sole basis of a constitutional solution for a multi-racial South Africa. The faster the economy marched—and it marched at least as fast as the population grew and its expectations increased—the faster the old tribal distinctions tended to break down. But here, in the land of Rip van Winkle, occupied by members of this Government, nothing changed. If it had changed, it had to be put back where it was. This Nongqause dream gained credibility just as Nongqause’s dream gained credibility. Dr. Verwoerd, who had been its fierce opponent, came to be its most eloquent exponent. All opposition, even his advisers in Sabra, were swept aside at the least criticism of his increasingly personal explanation of this policy. A whole decade of young Nationalists were reared with this idea as a plausible escape from the implications of the problems of a multi-racial society. Academics were inspanned to justify it, new theories were invented and new meanings were given to words. How often were new meanings not given to words to lend further force to this theory of racial incompatibility and the imperative need to avoid friction by physical separation? All the real evidence to the contrary was disregarded and was forced into oblivion and all the theories of racial irreconcilability became something like a State religion amongst the ranks of hon. members opposite.

I do not want to talk about what was done to the forces of official propaganda and how they were mobilized to sell this policy and to brainwash people into believing that there was a new millennium at hand. It became something of a heresy to question the fundamental principles of the policy and to draw attention to the hardships or the injustices that it would involve. The attitude was that if the entire civilized world condemned the policy, the entire civilized world was wrong and South Africa was right. I believe that hon. members opposite got themselves into a state of mass hypnosis on this issue. However, there are increasing signs of disaffection. What is so interesting is the reassertion of the stubborn independence of the Afrikaans-speaking man in South Africa and his determination to look at realities and to see them clearly for himself.

Are you talking about defection?

I am talking about disaffection, and I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister that there has already been a Schalk Pienaar and a Wimpie de Klerk. There might be one here and one there, but the walls of the dam are going to crack, because people realize that this is not a solution to the biggest problem in South Africa, viz. the problem of the urban Bantu living in our industrial areas. It is at this stage that we are now asked to accept this Bill. I think we have to ask ourselves a very important question, viz. whether this Bill is genuinely designed to serve the interests of the Xhosa people or whether it is essentially an attempt to justify the right of a White minority to dominate the greater part of South Africa exclusively for itself. Hon. members have been at pains to explain how this was deserved by the Xhosa people and how they wish to give it to them. What do the Xhosa people say themselves? However poor and fallible the means of consulting the Transkeian people have been, we must accept that, even with due allowance for the inadequacies of the system, there is probably a majority who are in favour of indendence. That I give to the Government on a plate. The question is, however, whether this was an authentic act of self-determination or whether it was merely a choice of the lesser of two evils. In my own discussions with the homeland leaders over the years, I have found that they see separate independence as being preferable perhaps to their present situation although it is by no means the alternative they desire. The other option, i.e. the acceptance of their people as equal citizens in a unitary State or participation by their people as equal citizens in a federal State that will safeguard minority interests, was put to them.

Have they told you that your policy is acceptable?

Some of them have, and a great many of them have opted for federalism as opposed to independence and have said so publicly.

Would you care to name any?

Does the hon. the Prime Minister not remember the joint statement that was issued after a meeting at the Holiday Inn in Johannesburg, by a whole series of the leaders of the Black States, opting for federalism as opposed to the present system? Did the hon. gentleman not read it? I shall have it sent to the hon. the Prime Minister. It was the hon. the Prime Minister himself who told these people that if the homelands do not accept independence, they must stay as they are. As I understand it, the homeland leaders are unwilling to accept the two options that have been offered to them and they are more than ready to discuss the third and the fourth. Here I exclude Chief Kaiser Matanzima, because he opted for independence as he has always done. Let us look under what conditions he opts for independence. What does he himself say? I have a quote here from Press reports, which the hon. the Deputy Minister seems to cast doubt upon, but I have no reason to believe that they are inaccurate. Speaking at Lady Frere last Saturday, he said the following—

The report continues—

The House may judge for itself to what extent even Paramount Chief Matanzima is a free and willing partner in the type of independence he has chosen to accept. He used strong language—

I wonder whether he was referring to the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. He went on—

There is, therefore, a new conflict. At the very beginning of this business of independence there is a new conflict. Either the Government yields to the Paramount Chief’s demands, in which case the essential purpose of the Government’s policy breaks down, or the Government insists on the terms as stated in the Bill we have before us and faces the aggravation and resentment and hatred the Paramount Chief talks about. Such are the solutions and the benefits of the policy of separate independence. And the Government had hardly started to show its full hand. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has given us a fair warning of what he himself has in mind. He considers the Bantu person’s membership of his nation to be actually more important than his section 10 privileges, i.e. the privileges he has in terms of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, because, he says, it has the potential for more dynamic future development than the section 10 provisions. He says that if the Bantu identifies himself with his own specific Black nation, he will be more welcome here than those who deny their relationship with a Black nation of their own. He mentions the preferential treatment they will be given, including the fact that they will not be declared to be aliens as in the case of citizens of other independent countries. I take it this means that Bantu having privileges under section 10 will retain these privileges, provided they associate themselves with citizenship of a homeland. What is the position if they do not? I take it to mean that Bantu from newly independent homelands will be able to gain such privileges while Bantu from foreign countries will be treated under sections 12 and 13. However, what happens to a Bantu who is recognized by South Africa as a Transkeian citizen even though he has been born in South Africa, and thus is not a South African citizen, but is not recognized by the Transkei as a Transkeian citizen? The Minister says—

What the hon. the Minister has not told us is what he is going to do about them, especially those that were born in South Africa. Is he going to try to send them across the border back to the Transkei? Is he going to refuse to allow any citizens from the Transkei to work in the Republic of South Africa while there are people here whom he considers to be Transkeian citizens, although the Transkei does not? Does the hon. gentleman realize that he is dealing with people who are today South African citizens, who have every right to be treated as such, and who have every right to call upon South Africa to protect them under international law? What does he think the reaction of the outside world is going to be to legislation of this kind? What does he think the reaction in the other homelands is going to be? What does he think the reaction is going to be amongst the Black urban population in South Africa, which is recognized as the flash-point of any disturbance in this country?

I know the Minister’s dilemma, Mr. Speaker. If he cannot deprive these people of any semblance of a claim to political rights in the Republic where they live and work and marry and produce and die, the whole object of this operation becomes pointless. His whole policy is based on political abdication of responsibility for these people and it is a political abdication which has no moral justification whatever. The very foundation of citizenship is the will of the citizen to retain it. If he can be deprived of that citizenship without any act or expression of free will by himself, then the whole fabric of citizenship in the modern State falls away. It seems that the people of the Transkei, especially those domiciled outside the Transkei, will soon have no illusions. People of the other homelands will be left with no illusions and the outside world certainly will have no illusions. I hope that the members of this House have no illusions about what they propose to do this week and will bear that responsibility in future.

What should be done, Sir? We believe that citizenship in the Transkei should be limited to the definition laid down in the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963 plus the condition that the individual be domiciled or permanently resident in the Republic of the Transkei and that only then shall he cease to be a South African citizen. We will move an amendment to that effect in the Committee Stage.

So far in this debate not much has been said, oddly enough, about the economic implications of independence. This is surprising because Dr. Verwoerd always emphasized the need for economic development and its connection with political development He said one must first make the masses ripe for their participation in government, politically, culturally and economically, and later he said it would not suffice to take the Bantu to his homeland and there prepare him for self-determination if the means to be self-sufficient is lacking; without a stable economic background any political system will collapse sooner or later. Now, Sir, how strong or weak is the economy of the Transkei? There were figures quoted here last night indicating that it was producing 0,6% of South Africa’s gross domestic product. It is realized that of its budget of R135 million annually, R93 million comes from the Republic. Of the gross national income per capita, which the Government claims is now R169, some 70% is earned In the Republic. What is the effect of independence going to be on this? What undertaking has been given to the Transkei by this Government in respect of the donations and the grants which it will make annually? What will happen if those grants are not given? Here we are being asked to vote independence for the Transkei. There is no agreement before us, of the 48 we have seen, which deals with this matter. There has been no statement by the hon. the Minister. We do not know what the implications are. You know, Sir, there is a Scandanavian economist, Gunnar Myrdal, who has pointed out that the rich countries of the world are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. He points out that the position where it is most difficult for an underdeveloped country to develop is when it is alongside a rich and developed country. He points out that although at first the benefits of the rich economy on its borders flow towards it, in time the reverse takes place and the poor country gets poorer while the rich country gets richer. Now, there are economists who criticize this theory for various economic reasons, but it does seem as though this is something that regard must be had to in respect of an independent Transkei. There was a Dr. Fӧlscher of the University of South Africa who did a critical examination of the problem connected with the economic and physical relations between the Transkei and the rest of the Republic as factors affecting the Transkei’s development. He said—

And this seems to be all-important—

He goes further to indicate what the problems are in the Transkei and what the difficulties are going to be in respect of its economic development in the event of independence.

This Bill contains no guarantee, and no assurance that help will continue to be given to the Transkei. There have been statements by hon. Ministers and there have been undertakings, but what is going to be the position? In fact, what it seems is that there is a moral abdication here of responsibility for a large number of people who today are South African citizens. The abdication leaves them in a position in which they will have to seek help elsewhere, in which they will have to sacrifice their territorial economic unity which most critics consider as being essential for economic development, and in which they will be in a weak position to negotiate. There is not even an indication that they are in a position today to produce enough food for their own people in their own territory, despite the fact that they form portion of that blue triangle with an average rainfall of over 500 mm per year.

I know that the argument will immediately be advanced that many of these difficulties would arise even if the Transkei were a federal unit in a federation. I think that the main point here is that that would only happen if the Transkei were neglected inside a federation and that it is far less likely to happen if it remains part of a federation. If it did, it would obviously remain part of a large economic unit. It would obviously be agreed that statutory subsidies would be paid from the federal Assembly to it, and the presence of Black homeland representatives in a central or federal Parliament would ensure a continuous source of revenue and the right to share in the wealth of the whole of South Africa. There would be a fairer assessment and solution of the problems of unfair competition and of economic advantages of one area over another. What is perhaps even more important is that for the Transkei to maintain itself it has got to create new work opportunities, job opportunities, annually. That is a most expensive business. How does an independent Transkei afford that? If it were part of a federation, those work opportunities could be created all over South Africa and it would be a federal responsibility.

So far I have looked at this situation from the point of view of the Transkei. What about the point of view of the Republic? It loses control of an area where there are certain conservation practices, where there are certain practices in respect of agriculture and the soil which are being observed. Political division means divided control of land use, and that can spell disaster for every inhabitant of Southern Africa. I do not need to labour this point. I do not have the time, unfortunately. I think it is well known that South Africa has tried for various reasons to get co-operation from other States in Southern Africa to from an organization called Sarccus to see that the ecology was conserved, that right agricultural and conservation practices were put into use, What happened? They knew what had to be done, but they could not enforce it. I fear we may land in the position where, while we know what has to be done, we cannot persuade the people to do it. It may have serious effects on the food production of Southern Africa in the years that lie ahead. There is no agreement in this Bill before us which deals with this matter. There is nothing in this Bill which deals with this situation.

There is one last issue with which I want to deal, and that is the position of the Whites and the Coloureds in the Transkei. In this regard the hon. the Minister said, “The guarantee is given to Whites and Coloureds that the Government of the Republic will safeguard their properties and businesses against loss should they have to leave the Transkei. ”What happens, however, if they want to leave the Transkei? That does not mean they “have to leave”.

It is one and the same thing.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister does not say so.

He just waves his hand.

I know I will be asked what the attitude of the United Party will be if this Bill becomes law. I think that is a fair question. I have stated in unequivocal terms my total opposition to the Government’s policy of answering South Africa’s vital need for conciliation, co-operation, mutual trust and common loyalty by what I regard as methods of estrangement and fragmentation. What then will our attitude be if and when the Transkei becomes an independent State? I do not think anyone who has paid attention to speeches by hon. members on this side of the House, on our federal policy at home and on our foreign policy in regard to Southern Africa, can have any doubts as to where we stand. The homeland leaders know, and I am sure that Paramount Chief Matanzima knows, of our deep conviction that the best interests of us all will ultimately and inevitably be found in an agreed federal arrangement. Many of them share our view, at least in broad principle, and have gone on record as saying so. They are also aware of our understanding of the limited options now open to them, namely independence or the status quo, and of the grave and unhappy dilemma in which this places them. They know, therefore, that we will not reproach them or reject them if they feel compelled to take independence now as the lesser of two evils. They also know that we will not seek unilaterally to terminate their independence if we are again returned to power. However, we shall certainly never desist from seeking the support of the White electorate for a federal solution, and if we succeed in this, we shall certainly offer its benefits not only to all the communities within South Africa, but also by negotiation to those who have taken their independence. The devolution of power and the decentralization of industrial development and investment are also implicit in a federal policy. Therefore we shall always be ready to give our support to such initiatives by the Government, but we shall insist that the ultimate purpose must be the greater security and prosperity of all the peoples of South Africa. To the extent to which separate States do exist in our subcontinent,we have repeatedly pressed for policies of closer co-operation and interdependence. We have often argued the merits of such a Capricorn policy, and there are signs that our arguments are steadily gaining wider acceptance. Therefore, as far as my party is concerned, such policies will also apply to the communities of South Africa which have found it necessary, under the present dispensation, temporarily or otherwise to take their independence.

There is a single theme running through the United Party’s attitude to the homelands that remain in South Africa, to those who elect to take independence and also to the other States of Southern Africa. Their citizens are people who share our opportunities and our dangers on this sub-continent. The theme is that federalism in South Africa and interdependence in Southern Africa are complementary and, indeed, that neither can wholly succeed without the other. To the extent, therefore, to which the present Government adopts policies consistent with this ultimate objective, we shall not hesitate to give them our support. However, to the extent to which the Government deviates from or endangers such policies, it must expect our implacable opposition, as the Government has in regard to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, after such a long debate, which began here on Monday, it puts quite a strain on a person to have to rise immediately and reply to what everyone said. It was a debate which did in fact come up to the expectations which I cherished, and which I indicated right at the outset in the appeal I made here. At the outset of the debate, and especially towards the end of my introductory speech, I made a serious appeal to all hon. members to participate in this debate on that high level of which I know this House is capable. I am grateful to be able to say that this is, to a large extent, what happened. Perhaps it was not entirely perfect, but after all not all of us are perfect. Not even the hon. members opposite are entirely perfect. The debate was probably not conducted on an entirely perfect level, but I think all three sides of this House participated in the debate in a manner with which we may feel satisfied. Probably not every member participated in the debate on an equally acceptable level, but because we may in general be satisfied with the level of the debate, I have nothing but thanks to express.

Therefore I shall begin my reply by making a few general observations on the debate, and subsequently I should like to deal first with the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because I should like to show him the necessary respect as Leader of the Opposition—may I say “Oppositions”, or is it just “Opposition”?—and I do not want to deal with his speech right at the end when I shall perhaps be trying to beat the clock.

In regard to the debate in general I am indeed grateful for the way in which it went off, and for the tone which hon. members in general adopted. I say “in general” for there might be several hon. members to whom this commendation is not entirely applicable.

Hon. members opposite must not roar with laughter now—something which is a political method which we employ as a means of protest in this House since the rules and the tradition of this House limit protest—when I say that I received a truly great deal of assistance for hon. members on my side.

You needed it.

To a great extent I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park. He practically took the words out of my mouth by saying that I needed help. I did need it, for now it will not be necessary for me to reply to the debate for three hours. The contributions made by hon. members on my side entailed that more than half of the work which I would have had to do in order to reply to the debate, has already been done. Hon. members on this side very effectively advanced counterarguments to the arguments presented by hon. members opposite. Members on my side effectively made mincemeat of many of the debating points which members opposite raised. It is true that there was no need for us to make mincemeat of the points raised by some of the hon. members because they did so themselves. In this regard I am thinking for example of the hon. member for Albany, who made mincemeat of himself. In future many people will look up this very historic debate in Hansard, and for their sake I am saying that they will not necessarily hear replies from me to all the points raised by hon. members opposite. Indeed, it is not necessary for me to reply to all the arguments. People who look up the debate will surely have to read all the speeches which were made on our side as well if they want to find the replies which were given to the arguments of the hon. members opposite. I feel it is necessary to place my view concerning this matter on record. Consequently I shall not, as it frequently behoves one to do, make a more detailed analysis of all the speeches made on our side, or add a few words of confirmation. I know that it is not necessary, nor do hon. members on this side necessarily expect it. However, I can say that the contributions which members on this side rendered were magnificent and particularly valuable contributions.

What I am also grateful for is that there was a very clearly discernible lack of spark or fire on the part of the Opposition. In the debate there was no spark or fire from the Opposition. And this was the case in regard to a subject which, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rightly said, was probably one of the most important measures we have ever dealt with here. Perhaps it is even more important than the discussion on the establishment of our Republic. Other hon. members also referred to the importance of the discussion. That we were able to conduct this debate without the spark or the fire which we saw so frequently in the past in earlier Oppositions, is something to be grateful for, because it is a compliment to our policy.

It is the tragedy of your policy.

I realize that the hon. member for Green Point will not shout “hear, hear!” when I say this. After all, it is simply not possible for him to do so. Of course we also had a little theatre and a little “showmanship” from the opposite side of the House. In this way, for example, the hon. member for Durban Point who, as we know, is the great oratorical induna of the UP, leaped into the debate at a very early stage because it very soon became apparent that it was necessary to try to extinguish the fire and the passion on the Government side. [Interjections.] After all, we know the hon. member. He has been in this House for a long time. We have seen him talking with his tongue in his cheek. He has two cheeks, but unfortunately only one tongue. If he had had two tongues, he would have had a tongue in each cheek. And he rose to his feet, with his tongue in his cheek, and he spoke, and when he resumed his seat, he was inwardly laughing enjoyable at himself, as he so frequently does when he unburdens himself of his oratorical declamations in this House. Oh well, he beat the oratorical drum here, and said many things.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to say that a member has been talking with his tongue in his cheek? It means he is being deceitful.

No, Sir …

Order! The hon. the Minister must please explain what he meant by that. In the past it was ruled out of order. However, I think it is an expression which we generally use. Therefore I should just like the hon. the Minister to explain what he meant by it.

Let me explain it. I am very pleased that you put that question to me. I am also pleased about the point of order raised by the hon. member for Griqualand East. I said that the hon. member spoke with his tongue in his cheek because he was, throughout, making a speech at which he himself should really have laughed, even if he did not do so. [Interjections.] Consequently I said—it is already on record—that when the hon. member resumed his seat, he was inwardly shaking with laughter at himself.

I do not laugh at the breaking up of my country.

The hon. member may say whatever he likes about it now.

Then there was the speech made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I just want to refer to him in general, because I shall return specifically to his speech in a moment. I regret that he was unable to be present here this afternoon, but I know what his reason is for not doing so. I have already told him how much I regret his having to be absent this afternoon owing to circumstances. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana presented a semi-dissertation here. He addressed the House in a calm, dissertational manner and, truly, not even in that studious manner which we have heard from him at times. His analyses were not always on target. Then there was the hon. member for Sea Point who floundered around nervously in his speech. He came forward with a lot of disjointed allegations. The hon. member for Albany, in his turn, presented a speech that was entirely devoid of ideas. In fact, he discounted himself as a person who was unable to make any positive contribution. It may perhaps sound anachronistic if I say this, but still, we did hear a few occasional positive notes being sounded on the Opposition side, and again towards the end of the afternoon, by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore I say that I have quite a lot to be grateful for, even from the Opposition.

In general many hon. members of the Opposition, and this afternoon again, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, spoke here in a way which made one think that they were in fact thrusting their hands into the great machinery of the time and of constitutional development in an effort to turn back the wheels and the gears, to try to throw the ethnic evolution which is in progress in South Africa into reverse. That is unthinkable. That is impossible. Dr. Malan once said that one could not sweep back the waves of the ocean with a broom, or stop the west wind with a sieve.

That is what some hon. members of the Opposition are trying to do here. The independence of a nation, a nation which was created by Providence to be a nation—as Germans, Britons or Russians were created to be nations—affords those hon. members no pleasure. It is because their fingers have become so enmeshed in the gears of the time and of evolution that their arguments no longer have any force. Perhaps that is also why there was an absence of the necessary spark of vitality in this debate.

I now want to turn to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said here this afternoon that our country, which has been a unity during all the years since 1910, is now being threatened with fragmentation. But I have already pointed out in my speech that less than three years after 1910 Gen. Hertzog presented the first clearly articulated indication that the Whites would not be able to retain the whole of the new Union for themselves, but that the Natives would have to receive their share of it. Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts, and others as well, said the same thing during the first decade after Union.

They never spoke of independence.

Mr. Speaker, there we again have the old stock reply from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and others.

But how do you come by independence?

If we investigate what was said, we shall find that no mention was made of independence. At that stage, however, they were not even asking for independence for the Union itself in the form of a Republic. This is a natural development in the course of time and in the evolution of a nation.

These are all fallacious arguments!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred this afternoon to “territorial abdication, political abdication and a moral abdication”. In regard to “territorial abdication” and “political abdication” I concede that he is entirely correct. It is territorial cession, or territorial abdication, if he wants to refer to it in that way. It is also political abdication. However, I disagree entirely with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he says that what we are doing is moral abdication. What we are doing is not moral abdication. It would be far more immoral, as it would be unethical—unethical in a constitutional sense—if we did not assist with and carry through this perfectly natural consummation of the evolution of the Transkei. It is a natural evolution, a process through which considerably more than a 100 nations in the world have already passed. Other hon. members also referred to this. Why can this happen to small countries—small countries as regards their population, surface and financial resources, as the hon. member for Lydenburg very strikingly indicated—if it may not also happen to the Transkei? Why may it happen to other small countries, and happen with the acclaim and the acceptance of the entire world? With the Transkei it may supposedly not happen now. The Xhosa may not become the nation they in fact are.

Why did Dr. Malan not approve of it?

Dr. Malan? I have quoted what Dr. Malan said. He said that these should become their true fatherlands. It was stated thus in his political manifesto of 1948. The hon. member for Griqualand East must try not to become so excited and interrupt me, particularly not on the matter of Dr. Malan. He cannot argue with me about Dr. Malan. I know more about Dr. Malan and his statements on the NP than the hon. member for Griqualand East could ever dream of.

There is more than you can conceal too!

There was nothing to hide in what Dr. Malan said or did. We are building on his firm foundations. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that our allowing the Transkei to become independent now is a moral abdication, may I ask him whether it was also moral abdication when the three protectorates—Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana—became independent? Was that moral abdication? Look at the Leader of the Opposition enjoying himself now! He is sitting there laughing and trying to pass it off as a joke.

Their inhabitants were not citizens of South Africa.

Surely it is not only South Africa that can perpetrate a moral abdication. Cannot Britain also perpetrate it? Cannot Russia also perpetrate it? Cannot Germany or any other country also perpetrate it?

South African citizens are being deprived of their citizenship against their will.

Did Britain not do the same in respect of Lesotho and all the other places? Has it not happened over the entire world? No. The Leader of the Opposition did not give mature consideration to that point at all. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked whether the possibility of a federation had ever been suggested to the Transkei. The Government did not suggest any political system to the Transkei. Nothing of that nature was suggested to them. For example we did not ask the Transkei whether they wanted to become a kingdom or a Republic. The Government did not even ask the Transkei, or recommend to them, that they should have a President with executive power, as almost all the African States have, or a president without executive power. All those things are their own choice. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want the Government, that believes in the self-determination of a nation, to prescribe to them what they should be? The people of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, particularly when the hon. member for Yeoville was still a member of his party, went to put the federation system to certain leaders. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to remember that it was repudiated within a week by the leader to whom he went to put it. Many other leaders also spoke out against it. Or is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still proud of the Mahlabatini escapade of the hon. member for Yeoville? Does the Mahlabatini escapade still belong to the United Party, or does it no longer belong to that party? Did the hon. member take it with him? Has the UP abdicated from that? Has it gone to the PRP with the hon. member? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is as mute as a tin of sardines now, for he cannot speak. I do not take it amiss of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for preferring to say nothing about such an uncomfortable subject, for the hon. member for Yeoville would enjoy it so much if he said anything, whatever the reply may be.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Yeoville is agreeing with me again. In this regard I just want to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of something. To save time I am not going to quote it to him. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to what Dr. Verwoerd had said in 1951. Today is not the first time I have heard Opposition members referring to the occasion in 1951 when Dr. Verwoerd spoke of small, non-contiguous, separate reserves which would not be able to become independent. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must please not quote the words of Dr. Verwoerd out of context. He did refer to small, non-contiguous reserves, but none other than Dr. Verwoerd himself replied to the charge against him in this House in 1965. He did so himself. I shall merely give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the reference. He would do well to read the Hansard of 1965, column 4236-7. There he will see that what Dr. Verwoerd said amounted to this: Politics passes through an evolutionary process and is not static. This is the first point: The years 1950-’51 are not 1965, or as the late Gen. Hertzog expressed it very succinctly: Yesterday is not today. In the reply which Dr. Verwoerd gave in 1965, he also said that an ethnic awakening was taking place, that an ethnic awakening was in progress in Africa, and that this was something of which we here in South Africa should take cognizance and to which we should give shape in terms of the evolution of a nation on the way to its own destination. He gave his own reply to that.

This is a somersault.

No, it is not in any way a somersault. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked what I as Minister or what my department would do with Transkeians who refuse acceptance of their own citizenship, in other words those in the White area who do not want to accept it. I want to assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he need not gloat over that, as though we were going to experience major problems in this regard. I am going to be proved correct when I say that the Bantu in the White area—the Transkeians are the first group; the others will subsequently follow, and the next appear to be the Bophuthatswanas—will see what the advantages for them here in White South Africa are on the basis of the fact that they are citizens of their homeland, quite apart from the fact that they will be proud of their own citizenship and that they will accept it for the sake of their own national pride, cultivate their own nationalism and to know that they have a place in the glory of the continued existence of their own nation. Apart from that, they will also perceive the advantages of professing and recognizing their membership of their own nation, because they are in that way receiving those preferences here in the White area on which I have already elaborated. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will find that I will not have as many headaches over this as he probably hopes.

The last question of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to which I want to reply concerns the issue that there is allegedly no security built into this Bill in regard to assistance to the Transkei. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a jurist and I admit, in all humility, that he probably knows far more about the law than I do, who am no jurist. Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to be able to understand it very easily when I say that he ought to know that this legislation is basic legislation which, together with certain other essential provisions, surrenders sovereignty over the country and its territory. That is all that it entails. In addition to the agreements which we are entering into, there is still going to be a series of other laws. I have already stated in this House that a Bill relating to the financial relations between the Transkei and this country is still to be introduced during the present session of Parliament. The hon. the Minister of Finance will see to that. That Bill will also cover the question of financial support. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to know this, for he has, after all, seen the stack of agreements.

Yes, but by this time we ought to know.

Could that hon. member please contain himself a little. Sir, could we not distribute tranquillizers in this House? For three days I have listened with the utmost patience and restraint to the hon. members, and now they do not even want to give me a chance to speak and to taste that same pleasure. Apart from that legislation, which will deal only with financial relations, other Acts have already been passed here, and in addition there is other legislation on the Order Paper which we still have to pass. All this legislation will indicate how we will assist the Transkei in all kinds of ways. There are certain agreements—the hon. the Leader ought to have had access to this, because I have sent copies to his party—of how Escom for example has undertaken to render certain services, how the CSIR will render certain services and how many organizations, including Agricultural Technical Services, etc., will render assistance and services to the Transkei, and others as well if they should be requested. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to know this. After all, we are doing it for other African States, countries to which we have far fewer obligations than in the case of the Transkei. Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not be afraid that we will not render assistance to the Transkei. We shall be very pleased to render assistance. I am very pleased that at least, towards the end of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s own speech, a note was sounded to the effect that his party would want to help.

I now want to begin at the beginning, and say a few things in general about the question of citizenship about which so much has been said. I shall then, as I react to the speeches made by the various hon. members, refer specifically to the question of citizenship. I shall deal with the speeches in chronological order. In general, however, I first want to say that if there has ever been a subject which was literally blown up to bursting point, then it was the question of citizenship. And I can understand this very well, too. On the most cardinal point the policy of the two Opposition parties collapses in ruins with the piloting through of this Bill. This is the case, whether the issue is the qualified franchise of the little Progressive Reform Party, or the enlarged Senate of the UP, their integration plans and whatever schemes the UP may have—there are so many of them that I cannot remember them all. However, all of them are based on integration, i.e. that in South Africa there is only one big human society …

That is untrue, and you ought to know it.

What?

Integration is not our policy.

Oh, is it not? It was the policy of the UP in 1954. Is what the hon. member is now saying official? It became the policy of the UP in 1954, as set out by the then member for Edenvale who sat in more or less the same bench as the one in which the present member for Edenvale is sitting. That is where the UP’s policy of integration began. Subsequently, of course, it changed. But the whole idea behind the policy of the UP, whether they want to call it this now or not, is an integration idea with the entire mass of people in South Africa integrated into one human society in one country which culminates in a single citizenship which will be realized in a single Parliament in South Africa. That is the policy of the UP. Today that policy is being dealt a serious …

Death-blow.

Death-blow—thank you for the word—with what we as the NP are now engaged in.

That is why it is clear to me why shudders are going through the two Opposition parties as a result of what we are doing.

The crux of the matter is the question of citizenship. What does the Opposition desire in this regard? They have expressed their desire in various ways and through various speakers in this House. It is their desire that the Transkeians should not be deprived of their present citizenship. Now I ask this question: In heaven’s name, how can the Transkei become independent while it does not have its own citizens, or while there is no separate Transkeian citizenship? How can this happen if its people have a dual citizenship? I know what the Opposition will say now. They will say that we ourselves formerly had a kind of dual citizenship, and indeed even advocated it. However, hon. members of the Opposition must remember that when we introduced a separate citizenship for the Transkei in 1963, they opposed it. When we did the same thing again in 1970/1971 with another Act, they opposed it again, and ridiculed the idea. They ridiculed the NP and the entire process when dual citizenship was introduced in 1963 in respect of the Transkei and in 1970/1971 in respect of the other homelands. They ridiculed us. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is nodding his head in affirmation. And now? Now they are asking for dual citizenship. Those who ridiculed dual citizenship are now asking for it, and requesting that the Transkeians should not lose their present citizenship.

No one asked for dual citizenship.

But this is what is being requested by implication.

Mention one hon. member who asked for it.

All the Opposition speakers who discussed citizenship. There is no logic in it, nor is there any appreciation for the nationhood approach which there has to be in respect of each Bantu nation, except, of course, if it is integration politics that has to be preached. I want to tell the hon. members that they blew up and inflated the matter to extraordinary proportions. What value can the new State of the Transkei have if, as an equivalent to its own citizenship, its people must also have citizenship of the Republic, or must be able to choose between the two? It is nothing but an obstruction and an impediment to, a neutralization of the separate citizenship and of the status, the personality and especially the international esteem which that State ought to enjoy if there has, in addition, to be such a ball and chain attached to its leg. In the entire process I never heard that anything like this was ever raised on the part of the Transkei.

We discussed these matters previously with the Transkei. We discussed them frequently on various levels, and hon. members are exaggerating the case tremendously by pretending that what is at issue now is a difference, a conflict—and all the other words which were used here—between the Transkei and ourselves over the concept of citizenship. That is not what is at issue. The concept of citizenship is not at issue at all. There are two clauses in the draft constitution of the Transkei which deal with these matters, 57 and 58. In clause 57 it concerns the people who are now Transkeian citizens and who remain Transkeian citizens in terms of this Bill and in terms of their legislation. There is no argument about that. There is a little argument about the problematical cases. What hon. members on our side said here was entirely correct, and what the hon. member for Houghton submitted here this afternoon in regard to this matter was entirely incorrect. This concerns the problematical cases, in regard to which we agreed that those matters should be dealt with by a board. And I can entirely understand that Chief Minister Matanzima, who perhaps received this legislation a little late and did not study it adequately, and others, are perhaps labouring under certain misapprehensions in this regard. I do not find that strange. After all, there are members in this House who have had this legislation for three weeks already and who have received a great deal of information, and who are still labouring under the most tremendous misapprehensions in regard to this matter. Here the misapprehensions, the confusion among the Opposition in regard to this matter, are such as one finds nowhere outside this House, not even in the Transkei. And certain misapprehensions have also been seen to exist on the part of certain newspapers. There were major misapprehensions on the part of many newspapers, and ignorance as well.

Was there a misapprehension on the part of Minister George Matanzima as well?

George Matanzima is in London, and he is being given the treatment there by journalists, as an hon. member stated here, and quite rightly so, too, this afternoon. [Interjections.] The hon. member must wait just a moment. I shall reply to him. The hon. member must realize that we shall thrash out this matter, the concern which the Chief Minister may have, with them. We discussed many things with them; we cleared up many things; and we shall still discuss these matters with them as well. But the hon. members must realize, and it was on this basis that I spoke to the Chief Minister, that his concern is not the 1,3 million people. His concern—and he has told us about this; he told us about this recently here in Cape Town—is the people who are perhaps citizens of Lesotho, or of another homeland in the Republic and who, on the basis of their knowledge of the language or other relationship with the Transkei, could try to sneak into the Transkei in order to become citizens of the Transkei in that way.

That is not what he said.

Sir, that hon. member must keep his mouth shut. He knows nothing about this. I am not referring to what I read in a newspaper. I am referring to what I heard from the mouth of the Chief Minister himself. I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side that they are only making matters more difficult for the people concerned in the Transkei to understand the essence of these matters. In fact, they might perhaps be pleased that I have now said this to them. But hon. members need not be afraid. We shall see one another again in this debating Chamber, at a later stage. Subsequently we shall again see one another here, and then we shall hear what became of this matter. We are proceeding very patiently, as we always do, with these matters. What I said in my speech still stands, namely that we, on our part, will do everything possible to see through to the end this major constitutional step with all its ramifications—citizenship is one of these—together with the Transkei, and we shall succeed in doing so. Hon. members need only wait a while. They will still see it.

What about the section 10 people?

I have already said so much about that, in my speech and previously, that it is really not necessary to repeat it now.

You have not replied to all the arguments.

The hon. member must go and read it. Surely he is at least able to read. He must go and read what I said about it in this very debate. [Interjections.]

I shall now begin with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, and I want to furnish him with replies to certain of the points he raised. In general I have already referred to things which he said. He also said that this Bill entails “a deprivation of rights”. That is not an absolute truth. South African citizenship was not a complete citizenship for these people because they did not have any franchise in this Parliament, nor did they have all kinds of other things which afford an intrinsic substance to citizenship. The loss of that and the acquisition of a full-fledged citizenship of their own country, with the retention of all the other benefits and preferences in the Republic of South Africa, is worth far more to every Transkeian in future than the present position. Consequently I cannot agree with that, for they are gaining far more than what they are perhaps losing.

In addition the hon. member for Umhlatuzana again harped on the old Port St. Johns theme by saying that we cannot be taken at our word. He held up Port St. Johns to us as an example. We had allegedly said that we would never include Port St. Johns in a Bantu area and then we went and did just that. I have said before, and I shall keep on saying, and therefore I am saying it today, that the people of Port St. Johns, although many of them might not admit it for political reasons, are profoundly grateful for the decision which we took. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir. It was the desire of the people of Port St. Johns that their properties would in due course be taken over by the Government. That is true. And we did not prejudice anyone by amending what we had previously said in regard to the non-inclusion of Port St. Johns by in fact including it. This is not an example of a breach of faith; it is instead an example of loyalty to those people by helping them out of a position with which they would subsequently have been dissatisfied and in regard to which they had this secret desire in any case. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana ended with a theme, the theme of federation, a theme without any melody in it. We heard it again this afternoon. Of course the most fragmented and the poorest presentation of the federation plan of the UP was the one we heard this afternoon from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The story of federation has really fallen very flat, so flat that for the principle body of that federation only one power has as yet been designated on the part of the UP, and that is tourism. [Interjections.] Hon. members may crow about this if they wish; it is true. Hon. members denied here this afternoon that they ever began in the fifties with their integration policy. In the same way we will still find them telling us that they no longer have a federation policy. But I wonder what the next thing will be. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will see to that of course. After all, he is a restless person, he will probably see to a new policy.

The hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Albany should really weigh their words for a change. The hon. member for Durban Point reacted here to a passage from a speech by Gen. Smuts which I quoted. I quoted the words of Gen. Smuts, and acknowledged my source. I also said that he spoke in the Savoy Hotel in 1917. But then the hon. member for Durban Point came here and took a chance. In a reprehensible way he pretended that I had proclaimed half-truths here. He said—

Here I have the entire speech of Gen. Smuts. Two pages after the passage I quoted that hon. member will find no further reference to this matter. There is nothing about it here, not in this entire speech of Gen. Smuts. Is it not disgraceful, then, to pretend in this way that I quoted only part of a person’s words? I have the quotation here under the heading “The White Man’s Task”, on page 18 of this work. There is no reference to it two pages further on.

I shall bring it.

The hon. member would do well to consult the source. The hon. member for Albany did the same kind of thing. Only he was a little worse of course. On that score he is one up on the hon. member for Durban Point. He said there was a further reference in the same work from which I quoted. That is not true at all. They do not know what they are talking about. One should not take such chances. In politics one should really be a little more careful than that. An old war horse like the hon. member for Durban Point really ought to know that by this time. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is something else I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point. In his speech the hon. member for Durban Point did not even refer in a well-disguised way … The hon. member for Durban Point must please listen to me now, for I should like him to hear these words of mine. I want the hon. member for Durban Point to listen now. That hon. member did not even fan the Black peril theme in regard to military matters here in a well-disguised way. He said all kinds of things about what was necessary in regard to military matters, and in doing so he came as close to Black peril and intimidation as anyone could possibly do, instead of being positive and saying what he advocated. I think that by this time, after so many years, the hon. member for Durban Point should have cultivated a little more of a sense of responsibility in regard to such an important matter as this. He should not stand here reverberating like an empty barrel.

I am interested in our security.

That did not emerge from the hon. member’s words. That is all I want to say about that matter.

The hon. member for Sea Point also discussed the federal system, and I need not say much about that.

Why do you not reply to my questions in regard to the non-aggression pact?

But all the particulars are furnished in the non-aggression agreement. Surely I cannot say more than is stated in that agreement. Surely the hon. member knows that we are still able to conclude further agreements on many matters, or that we could elaborate further on or augment every agreement which we have entered into. After all, we have not reached the end of our relations with the Transkei. We are at the beginning of a new chapter as far as the Transkei is concerned.

The hon. member for Sea Point said that the Republic’s offer of independence was accompanied by a measure of coercion. I want to deny in the strongest terms that there was any measure of coercion. The hon. member referred to the words of the Prime Minister, but I want to point out that the hon. the Prime Minister never compelled any homeland to accept independence. When the hon. the Prime Minister made the offer in this House a few years ago, he said that any homeland, any Bantu nation that wanted to become independent, could come and discuss the matter with the Government. We did not compel anyone. If we had wanted to exercise coercion, we could have started doing so long ago, but we did not do so. It is for the homelands to come to us, and the offer of the hon. the Prime Minister still stands today. This was also the case as far as the Transkei was concerned. The population of the Transkei freely expressed its opinion on these matters.

The hon. member for Green Point asked why a referendum had not been held. He implied that there should have been a referendum and that no obligation concerning citizen-ship should have been placed on the Transkei. We are not placing any obligation on the Transkei as far as citizenship is concerned. It was also said that minorities ought to be protected. Surely it is not our duty to dictate to the Black Government and its Legislative Assembly in what way the will of its people ought to be tested. That Government tested the will of its people. What is more: Later this year, but before independence, a general election will be held in the Transkei in September. By that time all these things will be known. The draft constitution of the Transkei will also have been published. Did the hon. member want us to intervene there as though we were some kind of UN, and hold elections or exercise supervision over them? Is the Transkei not to be afforded an opportunity of organizing its own affairs itself? May they not test the will of their people in their own way? This is not our approach to self-determination.

It was also asked why there is no “Bill of Rights”. Surely it is their country, and they decided not to have a “Bill of Rights” there. Are we to force this on them if they do not need it—we who do not ourselves consider such a thing to be necessary in South Africa? Of course, the hon. member for Houghton wants it, but what notion does she have of a “Bill of Rights”. The day when she is governing in South Africa we shall see one right after another disappearing. She would like to come into power by means of democratic methods, but the day she comes into power, we shall see what a farce is made of democracy.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein City referred to the methods which had been employed with Union. He said we were demolishing those methods. When he says that, I ask him whether he wants to imply that the methods which we adopted with the Republic should also be demolished. We know how thousands of his party’s supporters voted against the Republic. However, we also know that after we became a Republic they accepted the Republic. In fact, we are grateful that they did so, and I always refer to that as one of the things for which we are very grateful. I want to predict now that as the hon. member’s party opposed the Republic and afterwards accepted it and are now trying to be good Republicans, so Transkeian independence will also be accepted by his party. I only hope that they will in that way make the positive contribution which they can make if they want to.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it was the hon. member for East London City who made these rash statements?

It was the hon. member for East London City, and I am sorry that I referred to the hon. member for Bloemfontein City.

I am going rapidly through my notebook. I have almost 30 pages of notes, but I shall not say what page I have only now reached.

Mr. Speaker, I could have replied to what the hon. member for Albany had to say about section 114 …

That is not of great importance.

Yes, I thank the hon. Whip for that suggestion. I could have replied to the hon. member, but the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, who spoke after him, did so very effectively. However, the hon. member must not be so outspoken and use such derogatory words as “stupidity”, and others which he imputed to me. I see my way clear to having my intelligence tested against his.

Have they got a scale he will get on to?

Sir, I wonder whether I do not see my way clear to having this done against the hon. member for Durban Point as well.

Any time.

The hon. member for Albany need not be so insulting. He must be careful, for words which are used in this House are sometimes cruel boomerangs, which come back on a person. Believe me, the way he carried on in regard to the interpretation of section 114 did not testify to intelligence. I should prefer not to use the words “stupidity”; let me simply say that it did not testify to intelligence.

I have very little to say about the hon. member for Rondebosch. He said that in future the industries of the foreigners in South Africa would be indispensable. However, the hon. member did not read the subsection in question, for if he had done so, he would have seen that, as in the Transkei legislation of 1963, we state here, too, that the Transkeian citizens who will be in the White area will not be treated as foreigners in terms of the population registration or naturalization laws of our country. After what I have explained here, this is even more applicable. They will not be treated as foreigners. By virtue of their citizenship of independent homelands, they will in various respects receive preference and be treated better than foreigners from other African States. I do not know why the hon. member did his work by halves. He is a fellow who ought to be able to study better than that.

As far as the hon. member for Maitland is concerned, I want to say that I found it a little difficult to evaluate his speech. I am not quite certain whether the hon. member for Maitland was not pressurized into making a speech so that his own party could establish in what category of members he falls.

That is unfair.

Is it unfair? Very well, then I shall say nothing further about it. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member in any way. Perhaps that would only make his position difficult.

Now you are being unfair again.

But I am pleased that the hon. member struck a positive note. It was one of the few positive notes which we heard from that side.

That is not unfair.

No, it is very fair. The hon. member wished the Transkei everything of the best and said that this House should do everything possible to further the interests of the Transkei in future. We shall keep an eye on the Opposition in this regard. I just want to correct the hon. member in the reference he made to Dr. Verwoerd. According to him Dr. Verwoerd said that numbers counted as far as the sovereignty of the Bantu, or the authority of the Bantu, the power of the Bantu, the influence of the Bantu, the role of the Bantu are concerned—however one wishes to put it. Dr. Verwoerd did not say those things with regard to the Bantu in the White area in terms of our policy.

But of course he did.

No, he warned that the numbers in this regard would be extremely important and even decisive under a policy such as that of the UP. Of course, Dr. Verwoerd pointed out in addition, as we also do—this is one of the tasks of my department—that the number of Bantu in the White area should always be kept as low as possible. The interpretation which the hon. member for Maitland attached to Dr. Verwoerd’s words, was not correct, however. He would do well to look up Dr. Verwoerd’s words again.

I do not have very much to say to the hon. member for Bryanston. I am afraid that I will become excited if I talk about him. The hon. member made predictions here about the large number of Bantu who would be here by the end of the century, Bantu who would be present in the White areas without their South African citizenship. He called it a tremendous injustice. I want to remind the hon. member once again that the Transkei is not the first country in the world in which Black people are receiving their independence. Are the people in Zaïre, in Mozambique, in Malawi, the Ivory Coast or in any other country in Africa today weeping and wailing over the fact that the old powers withdrew and that they lost their citizenship of those old powers? They are not complaining about that.

Not one of those is an applicable comparison.

In some of those countries things are probably more difficult today—especially economically—than previously. Nevertheless these people are not complaining about it. The hon. member must realize that the same things are taking place in the Transkei, yet with this enormous difference that the Transkei will receive financial and other assistance from the Government of the Republic, so that things need not go badly for them. Their people in the White areas will be here because they are working here and because they are earning an income here, both for themselves as well as to strengthen their own country. For those reasons the hon. member will still come to realize—as I said a moment ago—that no weeping or wailing will be heard from the people in the Transkei.

Will there not?

No, there will not. The hon. member will still see this for himself. I hope he lives long enough to see it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must not keep on interjecting.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult to proceed in the midst of such a flood of interjections.

I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave a very unfair description of Chief Minister Matanzima. I want to say this here in defence of the Chief Minister. The hon. member alleged that Chief Minister Matanzima was one of the most vehement opponents of this Government’s policy, and that he would like to escape from this Government.

Of course he wants to escape from apartheid.

Yes, not only did the hon. member say that, he said many other things as well. The hon. member is very unfair. Moreover, the hon. member is stating the matter in the wrong light. The hon. member argued here that the UP was in favour of all kinds of development, was also in favour of the political development of the homelands, with a federation as the end result of course. He also ascribed it to the Tomlinson report, but with a federation as the ultimate object. The Tomlinson report did not propose anything of the kind. They did perhaps speculate on all kinds of realities which might emerge in future.

I said the people of the Tomlinson Commission saw it in this way.

Oh! The people of the Tomlinson Commission?

The leaders of the Tomlinson Commission.

Oh! The leaders of the Tomlinson Commission. Or was it perhaps the “backroom workers” which are now sitting over there against the back wall?

It is not stated in the report.

Aha!

It was taken out of the report.

Out of what report?

It should have been in the report.

I should like to look at the hon. member’s Hansard again. I wrote down my notes very rapidly here. One of the “backroom boys” of the Tomlinson Commission is in fact sitting against the wall there at the back. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may as well ask the hon. member for Edenvale about this.

I said the leaders of the Tomlinson Commission saw it in this way.

Oh no, the hon. member did not say that.

I did not say it was stated in the report.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also implied here that the Government had to prescribe to the Transkei, as it were. I repeat what I told the hon. member before, i.e. that it was not the duty of this Government to prescribe to the Transkei what kind of constitution they had to draw up. The Government left it entirely up to them. It is their choice. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to the Transkei that has to be accorded international recognition. He said that they would struggle because of the policy of this Government. It is in fact a “Transkei will” which they exercised in the drawing up of their own constitution. The hon. member used the expression “Transkei will”. They framed their own constitution. It is not a constitution which was forced on them by this Government. The Government even notified them that they need not even submit their constitution to the State President; that the matter was left entirely up to them.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who does not want to listen to me now—he is conversing with the hon. members behind him—must realize that this Government’s views on self-determination differ radically from his. According to his views people have to be forced in a direction. The Government left this matter to the Transkei.

[Inaudible.]

The Government left this matter to them.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must please contain himself.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North discussed the economy of the Transkei, as well as the matter of greater co-operation with South Africa. The hon. member in fact adopted an extremely doubtful tone. It was the kind of speech of which the hon. members of the Progressive Party would do well to try to cure him. It seems to me that it is the origin of the hon. member which makes it difficult for him to make speeches which one can try to appreciate and listen to within the South African cadre. The hon. member, however, addressed us in a very arrogant manner, as if he, and he alone, knew what was right, and that is far from being the case. The hon. member said that there was nothing good in the Bill and that it would destroy the economic progress of South Africa. That is the kind of enthusiastic statement he made. However, it is a false prophesy, for when self-government was accorded to the Transkei in 1963, it caused a tremendous economic revival and economic development in the spheres of industry, commerce and education, so much so that the Transkei was even able to establish its own university. In all kinds of ways, and of course in the constitutional sphere as well, it brought about tremendous expansion. I predict that the independence of the Transkei will bring about not only political but also economic expansion in future. This morning the hon. members were already able to hear that it had gained the prestige to enable it to raise an external loan, a loan of R12 million, in which this Government also played a part.

It is guaranteed by your Government.

Yes, the hon. member can try to belittle it as much as he likes. He is a young man, and I hope that he will grow old enough to see what I am saying here come true, namely that the Transkei, with independence, is entering an era of even greater and more intensive economic development than was the case in the past. That for which provision is being made in the legislation, also gives the territory the same boost it received in 1963.

The hon. member for Green Point raised two points to which I want to react. He asked in what way citizens of the Transkei will be able to make use of hotels in the Republic. I think the hon. member should simply look up the Hotels Act. He would then see that certain concessions are made, and that persons who only have work permits do not receive all concessions at hotels, but that people with passports and certain identification documents, do receive these concessions. The hon. member should simply go further into the matter. The hon. member also remarked on the 61 border posts. He said that there were 61 thoroughfares, on both sides, to the Transkei. There will be proper control posts on both sides at two places. The 61 thoroughfares represent the position as it is at present. The thoroughfares have existed over the years, and before the travellers reached the thoroughfare, whether it was a White person travelling from this side or a Transkeian citizen travelling from the other side, the necessary documentation from the district from which they came had to be presented. Another check is made on the other side. Certain control facilities are being introduced at the posts on the two major throughways through the Transkei, and it is foreseen that more such facilities will be introduced at certain other strategic entrances. This will come in time. There is no need at all for everything to have been introduced already. With independence it will, however, already exist at the two largest places.

As usual the hon. member for Edenvale presented us with a very fine semi-academic address here, in regard to which I do not want to argue with him to any great extent. One could argue with him a little here and there. For example, the hon. member referred to and waxed lyrical on the numbers of votes cast during general elections in the Transkei. The hon. member alleged that on one occasion—I do not know which occasion—fewer than 5% of the Transkeians in the White areas voted. I accept that the hon. member’s figure is correct. The hon. member then asked, with a very dramatic gesture, why so few of the people voted. I want to reply to the hon. member with the following counter-question: For what party did the few who did vote, vote? The hon. member ought to know that those people voted overwhelmingly for the party of Chief Minister Matanzima. Why does the hon. member think the other large number of people who are in fact entitled to vote, did not vote? I want to submit to the hon. the member for consideration that they did not vote because they did not consider it necessary. Who says that these people were all protesters? If this were the case, surely they could have lodged their protest in favour of the Opposition candidates. There were after all, opposition candidates, and there was polling in all the constituencies. During the last general election a poll was not held in all the constituencies because a number of candidates of Matanzima’s party had been returned unopposed at a number of elections. During the first election, however, there were opposition candidates in all the constituencies, and this was also the case during the second election. In other words, the hon. member’s argument does not hold good.

I was referring to contested constituencies.

It was in fact in the contested constituencies that the people, if they were supposedly opposed to the Government, could have voted for the opposition candidates. After all, there were opposition candidates. However, they did not do so, and the hon. member must consider the possibility—I am not saying that this is the case, because I did not ask them individually—whether those people did not abstain from voting precisely because they had no protest to register. The hon. member was a scientist—he is that no longer—and he should really investigate the matter a little scientifically. They could in fact have voted, but if they had preferred to carry on with their work, why should they have gone to vote? During the last election there were many United Party supporters who did not turn out to vote for the Opposition either.

The hon. member for Yeoville did an atrocious thing here yesterday evening by saying here that South Africa, with this Bill, was appearing before the World as a colonial State.

That is what you said; I merely objected to it.

No, the hon. member interpreted my words to imply that South Africa was a colonial State. The hon. member quoted my words. After the House had adjourned yesterday evening I said something to the hon. member in a very friendly spirit, and I want to repeat it here. The hon. member for Yeoville is forgetting that South Africa had has time to realize the trusteeship idea in respect of the Bantu for a very long time, since long before 1910 in fact. How many trusts were there in Natal which we had to take over and incorporate in the Bantu Trust? The hon. member for Edenvale will be able to tell the hon. member.

You are the one

It is a great pity that the hon. member for Yeoville is now degenerating to such an extent as to want to interrupt all the time. It is probably because he is sitting so close to the hon. member for Houghton. I told the hon. member that we had expanded the trust idea even further since 1936, because we then made an Act which not only united and absorbed the Natal trusts, but also extended the trusteeship idea throughout the whole of South Africa, and particularly to the Bantu areas. I am therefore entirely justified in saying that we are emancipating a trusteeship country. This is not colonialism in any way, but the old idea of trusteeship which we exercised over the Bantu. It was not in any way a colonial mentality which we were

And what are the languages of the Republic?

Yes, I know what the hon. member spoke about. The Republic of South Africa is not being affected in any way whatsoever when we hand over the Transkei as an independent country. We are handing over the Transkei with its two languages, with recognition of the Sotho language as well as of the Xhosa language, as embodied in the existing legislation. If anything is being done in respect of languages in the Transkei, we have nothing to do with it. We are not doing anything in that regard. Perhaps the Transkei is doing something about it. The hon. member keeps on interjecting to such an extent that one cannot make oneself heard. However, I want to tell the hon. member that he should spend a little time looking into the matter again. I think he will blush at the ignorance he displayed.

The hon. member for Griqualand East, of course, discussed his old topics. In the first place, the hon. member, as did other hon. members opposite, asked my why I did not let fly…

I did not use the words “let fly”.

What words should I use then? Can I not use my own words? The hon. member asked why I did not let fly at the Chief Minister of the Transkei over the speech he made recently. I had a Bill to introduce. My task was not to discuss newspaper reports here. The hon. member, as do several other hon. members opposite, thrive on newspaper reports. I explained a Bill; that was the task I had to perform. Did the hon. member and other hon. members want me to react to newspaper reports? I have had more than enough experience of newspaper reports to realize that they are not always correct. It is not necessary for me to play “ping-pong” with Bantu leaders—in the idiom I have already used previously—in Parliament for the pleasure of Opposition members and to the benefit of sensation-seeking newspapers. I have enough opportunities to conduct a dialogue with them directly and to discuss matters with them.

As I said this afternoon, we shall still hold many talks. I want to tell the hon. member that it is not fitting to speak in this manner about the relations of the Government and myself and we as members of Parliament with a Government of another homeland, and a homeland that is becoming independent at that. He wants us to fight one another in public at every opportunity. That is what the hon. member wants. He also discussed the land issue and used an expression in regard to the division of land which compels me to say for the umpteenth time in this House that it should please be understood very clearly that we as a Government at this time are not dividing the territory of South Africa among Whites and Blacks. Perhaps I shall have to repeat this ten times, a further nine times after today. We are not dividing the territory of South Africa among Whites and Black people in South Africa. That division of land has already taken place, in the past. History divided it, the events which sporadic conflicts between the groups brought about. History divided the land, and generally speaking the Native peoples in South Africa had just as much opportunity—I make so bold as to say, perhaps more opportunity—than the Whites to choose the area where they wanted to live. I say that the Bantu peoples had more opportunity to choose, and do you know, Sir, they really chose sensibly, for just look at the rainfall regions of South Africa, just look at the agricultural potential of South Africa, and just look at the mineral regions of South Africa, and you will see that for the most part the Bantu chose in the best areas, if one applies these criteria.

They chose well, and what did we do? Here and there adjustments and problems occurred, but generally speaking we accepted the position as it was. When I say “we” I mean the White authorities, not only our Government, but before our time as well, even before 1910. The White authorities accepted the position as the Bantu chose it, and we established it properly, entrenched it, I may say, in the legislation of 1913, and after 1930 we voluntarily, not even at the request of the Bantu, but voluntarily undertook to expand their territories by approximately 70% of the surface area of 1913. Of course, we are still in the process of doing that. The hon. members must therefore understand that if we purchase additional land for consolidation, or for whatever purpose it may be, we are not dividing the land of South Africa, but are giving effect to the word of honour given in 1936, the undertaking of 1936, to add that land to the Bantu areas, and they must understand that unfortunately it was not possible in the past, nor is it possible now to do this all at once. This must be understood very clearly, for a very false image is being created abroad, and it is for this reason that we have to listen to this nonsense of 13% and the 87%.

The hon. member for Griqualand East asked me a question about the municipal officials. We have held talks with the municipal officials in the Transkei. The hon. member is aware of this because I told him in an interview about a few things that would happen. We furnished that association of the officials with particulars in writing. I think that was in April. I am not quite certain, but in any case I think it was before the date which the hon. member mentioned. What is more, we also contacted the provincial authorities of the Cape and the necessary arrangements are being made there, by the province, to make it possible for the municipal officials, if they do not want to remain there, but want a transfer to some other place in the Province and subsequently, if need be, return, to be able to do so. The necessary legislation is also being passed in regard to their pensions, so that if they would prefer to become public servants they can have the necessary accommodation in regard to their pensions and their position to be able to join the Public Service. If they subsequently wish to return, they cannot do this. I think that the officials ought to have these particulars by this time, for it has been sent out to them. I shall give the hon. member a copy of the circular.

To me that circular is another matter altogether.

They have the choice of becoming public servants if they wish or they may go to the Province if they wish. The Province is making it possible for them. I think they can return to the Transkei from elsewhere in the Province if they wish.

That is the point. Can they?

The hon. member would do well to take that long circular—I shall give him a copy of it—and make a very thorough study of it.

I have already seen it.

Order! This is a matter which can be settled at a later stage.

I must honestly say of the hon. member for Griqualand that he also contributed something of a positive note to the debate when he said that they foresaw that this Bill was going to be passed, and that they would subsequently adopt an attitude of: “We hope that common sense will prevail, that there will be respect and that we will help each other.” That is as I noted his words down. I agree with the hon. member. That is why I said that I did in fact have a little appreciation for certain notes which were sounded on the opposite side. I am inviting the hon. member and his party once again to come forward positively in regard to this matter and to help us.

I replied to the hon. member for Houghton at the outset.

Replied?

Yes, I replied to her. Throughout her speech she referred to citizenship, and I have already replied to that. In addition she touched upon other matters which did not have anything at all to do with this matter, matters which she also raised under my Vote, and which she will continue to raise on many occasions in future, viz. home ownership and other matters which were not really relevant to today’s debate. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that we are not in any way threatening the people in regard to citizenship, as she alleged. With the way in which she carried on in this House about matters relating to the Bantu, with these false hopes and prophecies of hers and of certain members of her party, they are doing the Black people of South Africa infinitely more harm than they realize. She imagines that she is acting here on behalf of the Bantu. Here and there she may be accorded a little superficial praise from certain people in the Black world. That is quite possible. But to the majority she and her party are doing far more harm than they realize by pretending to the Black people that their salvation lies in the integration and assimilation policy of the party to which she belongs, instead of helping the people so that they can be themselves and so that they may succeed to an ever-greater extent in becoming themselves in future. With that I have come to the end of my reply.

I began with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to whom I have already furnished replies. I admit that I have not replied to every point raised by every hon. member. Nor is that expected in a debate such as this because, as I said at the beginning, many of these points have already been replied to effectively by members on my side of the House.

Now, I just want to thank hon. members on the other side once again for the contributions they made. Although I know what the result of the division is going to be, I want, in advance, to give hon. members this piece of advice for their consideration: Vote against this Bill as you will probably do, but there is still a Committee Stage and the Third Reading. It is not yet too late, even after the Opposition has voted against the Second Reading, to expand the positive note, which has been mentioned here with appreciation, further and to sound it at full strength in the subsequent stages. I repeat what I said in my Second Reading speech: It would be a wonderful deed if we as Whites, if we as a Parliament here in Cape Town, could take this matter further with a large degree of unanimity. The stages after this stage will afford the Opposition an opportunity to do so. In view of this I am once again making a serious appeal to them.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—113: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—43: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the failure to encourage the continued expansion of private enterprise. The Government says that it wants to encourage private enterprise. In its actions, however, the Government has done tremendous harm to the system of free enterprise in South Africa. There has to be concerted effort to encourage expansion of free enterprise because such expansion is absolutely vital to the future of South Africa. Ours is the one country which is compelled to avoid unemployment virtually at any cost. The consequences of large-scale unemployment are too ghastly to contemplate. In order to encourage expansion of industry in an area, we must be able to offer certain necessities like labour, water, power, transport and land.

Port Elizabeth is a city which can meet all these and other requirements. Let us examine how the entrepreneur coming to Port Elizabeth is hit by the Government’s attitude towards private enterprise. Firstly, there is the question of power. In regard to power we have seen the hon. the Minister recently and I believe that we may come right with him in regard to this. We receive our power from Escom, but unfortunately during 1975 we had 13 power breaks totalling 4 hours and 3 minutes. These power breaks are absolutely disastrous and the actual and potential loss is something that discourages all investors in the Port Elizabeth area and in the Eastern Cape. Next we have labour. Every industrialist wants to be assured that he can obtain adequate labour to do the required job. In other words, if the industrialist needs White labour, Indian labour, Coloured labour or Black labour, he must feel free to employ such labour that he requires. However, in Port Elizabeth there are at least two restrictions in the labour field that knock Port Elizabeth for a “loop”. The one is that Port Elizabeth is a Coloured labour preference area and the other is that we suffer under the restrictions of the Physical Planning Act. The name has been changed, but it is still the Physical Planning Act as far as I am concerned. In the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage area 19 applications for new factories have been refused and three applications for extensions have been refused.

Throughout the country 1 765 applications for factories and extensions have been refused which means that approximately 92 645 potential Bantu employees cannot get work. This is absolute madness. [Interjections.] The Government may well argue that some of the 1 765 applicants have agreed to decentralize, but the question is whether the hon. the Minister knows how many of those 1 765 applicants have, in fact, agreed to decentralize. The hon. the Minister does not know. We had a question on the Question Paper to another hon. Minister, but from the reply it is clear that the Government does not know what has happened to those applicants. In other words, they have lost 1 765 applicants and this must be a world record. [Interjections.] The lifeblood of economic growth is at stake, but nobody knows the fate of 1 765 applicants! I can still understand that the Government tries to persuade industrialists to decentralize, but having failed to do so, it is its bounden duty to know what has happened to the 1 765 applicants. These industries would have invested thousands of millions of rand in South Africa and in the economy of South Africa and they would have provided employment for thousands of people. I notice that the hon. the Minister is smiling. He is smiling because he is not one of the unemployed in South Africa.

He ought to be one of them!

Port Elizabeth and other cities have become the scapegoats of muddled thinking, red tape and the industrial absurdity of this Government. Private enterprise in Port Elizabeth has battled to be recognized, but Port Elizabeth has been treated as the Cinderella city of the Republic of South Africa. Private enterprise offered to build St. Croix for R28 million some years ago, but this would have been built with foreign capital

That is not true!

The hon. the Minister will have a chance to speak. St. Croix would have been built with foreign capital and it would have earned us hundreds of millions of rand in foreign exchange. The Government stalled St. Croix and placed obstacles in its way because it looked unfavourably on St. Croix and it favoured a State corporation scheme at Saldanha. I suppose that is also not true in the hon. the Minister’s words. [Interjections.] The Government successfully delayed the project for so many years that the cost is now approximately R110 million— approximately R80 million more than it should have cost. The Government has a deep-seated duty to give whatever assistance is required to bring this project to finality. If the Government did that, it would show faith and confidence in private enterprise. If the St. Croix scheme does not reach finality and if the Government does not assist, it will be to its everlasting shame and disgrace. If this scheme is not proceeded with, it will make a mockery of the Government’s claim that it is the instrument of encouragement to free enterprise. Had the scheme proceeded at a cost of R28 million, the Government would have been quite entitled to say to private enterprise that it is costing private enterprise little enough and it must go it alone. Remember the delay is basically caused by the Government’s choice, as first priority, of the scheme at Saldanha. Because of this reason the increased cost can be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Government. If the Government refuses to find a formula for the finalization of St. Croix—it should largely be finalized by foreign capital—we will be correct in drawing the following conclusions: Firstly, that the Government deliberately stalled St. Croix to ensure that the scheme would fail. Secondly, that the green light in 1974 was the big bluff because the Government knew that the scheme could not get off the ground without Government assistance.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the Government has attempted to torpedo and sabotage the St. Croix scheme. The people of Port Elizabeth have completely lost their confidence in the Government. They believe the Government has acted in bad faith all along in this matter. The Government has got the Eastern Cape’s economy in the vice-like grip of an octopus and it never relaxes that grip, it never lets up. The only way in which the Government can rehabilitate itself is for the hon. the Minister to sit round a table with the promoters of the scheme and to reach finality with them. I want to say to the promoters: May your venture prosper despite the Government’s interference and restrictions.

Another setback for Port Elizabeth is the Government’s attitude towards the dry dock scheme which was submitted by the Port Elizabeth area. The inquiry into the dry dock scheme was made in June 1975. I understand that this was the first approach in regard to a dry dock after the IDC scheme, which was a similar scheme, collapsed. The Port Elizabeth application has once again been stalled, as the Government is determined to give preferential treatment to the scheme at Saldanha. It is obvious that the whole Saldanha scheme has been hopelessly overcapitalized. They are now trying to make it viable at the expense of the Eastern Cape and much to our detriment. Despite the attitude of the Government, we in the Eastern Cape wish Saldanha the best of luck. Saldanha does not have the necessary infrastructure, as a result of which it will take many years before the necessary facilities are established.

I know the hon. the Minister is turning his back on the Eastern Cape, as he has done all these years. The Government must tell us when the scheme at Saldanha is to be commenced with and when it is to be completed. At Port Elizabeth such a scheme could have been proceeded with immediately. There would have been no delay there, because we have the necessary infrastructure. The estimate of the costs is R175 million. If that scheme were to be proceeded with, it would be a tremendous boost to the Eastern Cape and to the entire Republic. It is obvious that the applicant made an in-depth study before settling for Port Elizabeth. I should like to appeal to the Government to stop wearing blinkers when looking at applications that come from people who want to promote private enterprise, as in this particular case. I would remind the Government that on 14 February 1975, in reply to a question about the dry dock at Saldanha, the Government mentioned inter alia that the party, together with the IDC, made a study of the feasibility of a dry dock and ship repair complex and then stopped with the study after they came to the conclusion that it was not the proper time or place to proceed with that project. Various other reasons were also given. What assurance have we even now that that scheme will be proceeded with?

Mr. Chairman, the city of Port Elizabeth has progressed not because of Government assistance, but in spite of Government restrictions. We have the necessary infrastructure, we have determined people, and we have the ability to make a far greater contribution towards South Africa’s economy. I want to appeal to the Government to stop discriminating against Port Elizabeth and to allow Port Elizabeth to develop to its maximum potential. Stop bleeding our economy, is our appeal to them. Port Elizabeth cannot offer border concessions or other “perks”, but we can offer many other things. We can offer people who are willing to work and work hard. We can offer the industries that start up there the opportunity of building up thriving industries. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the hon. member for Walmer that we on this side of the House have become accustomed to his excessive use of superlative adjectives, like “absolute madness”, “muddled thinking”, etc. He referred to Port Elizabeth as the Cinderella city. I am told that rumours about the connection between the Cinderella city and a certain representative who turned into a pumpkin, are completely unfounded. [Interjections.] I would like to warn the hon. member that rudeness to an hon. Minister or to anybody else, has never constituted an argument. [Interjections.] I would also like to warn him, as one backbencher to another, that he should not in this hon. House abuse information obtained on the occasion of a delegation to an hon. Minister to support his argument in this House. I do not believe it complies with normal etiquette. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Chairman, Karl Marx said more than one hundred years ago that the capitalistic system contains in itself the seeds of its own destruction, and that the capitalistic system will destroy itself eventually. If we take note of the tendencies which exist in industrial countries today, we cannot but see the truth of this prediction. Nor have we in South Africa escaped these tendencies towards economic socialism. We find this in various sectors of the economy and it is the duty of the Government to maintain the delicate balance between the advantageous aspects of that system and the advantageous aspects of the capitalistic system. As long ago as 1956, two well-known economists in Canada found that true competition no longer exists, indeed that it is a myth. That is why it is vital for the Government in South Africa, too, to initiate a very thorough inquiry into all the determinants by means of which prices are determined, etc., as well as to the forms which seem to have the appearance of socialism. The Government must see to it that these tendencies do not get out of hand. Great care must be taken in this regard.

In the process in which the Republic of South Africa is still opposing the tendency towards economic socialism—which is a world-wide occurrence—the Government experiences violent criticism and numerous problems are created for it. The Government is, as it were, being crushed between two millstones. On the one hand there is the private sector which demands that the State should not interfere in the economic system. On the other hand there is the consumer who is making increasing demands for protection against increased prices, etc. The private sector has to its credit the fact that it sees to growth, employment, progress and prosperity. The consumer, on the other hand, has the political power in his hands, and it is within his power to take the reins of power from any Government on the basis of economic considerations.

The irony of the matter is that both these components—the private sector and the consumer—demand the best of both these worlds. One need only take note of how many undertakings often preach the capitalist system, until they have difficulties with an importer. It is then that they immediately come to the Government for relief and request tariff protection.

The individual enjoys absolute freedom as regards where he wants to work, how he wants to spend his money, etc. What is more, he wants to feel that he can enter any shop, blindfolded, as it were, in absolute confidence that the Government would protect him against exploitation by traders, an expectation which he has with respect to every one of the thousand and various articles which are offered on sale to him. As soon as he feels that prices are too high, he demands that the Government protect him. While these two sections compete with one another for the best of these two worlds, the Government stands between them and undergoes the most violent criticism from both sides.

Within the framework of this delicate balance which is being maintained in our economic balance, there are, however, many opportunities for malpractices.

I want to refer briefly to malpractices in the private sector, especially with respect to price control and monopolistic conditions. The mere fact that it is necessary to apply price control today, to the degree in which it is being done in South Africa, constitutes a charge against the integrity, against the honesty and against the economic patriotism of all the members of trade and industry. All this is due to a small minority who are guilty of malpractices, a minority with only one goal in mind, namely to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible. In that process all sorts of wilful methods are adopted, nor is there any trace of co-operation.

The professional integrity of trade and industry should compel these people to take only a fair profit when prices are being determined rather than take the largest possible profit which the market can carry at that particular stage in respect of that specific product. I believe that it is fitting that we should make an appeal to the private sector from this hon. House to the effect that they themselves, on the basis of an ethical code, take to task those trespassers and exploiters who are destroying the system, upon which our survival is based and without which we dare not enter the future from within. I believe that these people must be seriously warned that every cent of unjustified profit and every unfair deed on the part of trade and industry, brings us closer to realizing the prediction which Marx and Engels made more than 100 years ago. Trade and industry must therefore search their own hearts, too, in order to rectify matters from within so that it will not be necessary for the Government to rectify matters by means of measures like price control.

The profit motive is a noble motive, the only guarantee for economic survival. The profit motive ensures growth and prosperity and it ensures that our children and descendants will be able to experience the prosperity and welfare which we are experiencing. Therefore, I believe that we should move away as quickly as possible from as many of the price control measures as possible. We must attempt to penetrate to the cancer of the matter. We shall never succeed in doing away with all price control measures, due to the peculiarities of our South African market. But the cancer, the reason behind price control, inter alia, the formation of consortiums, fixing, etc., must be tracked down. Since these laws were put into operation in the USA at the end of the previous century, it has been very difficult to apply them, and the same holds for South Africa. I therefore want to ask that effective deterrents be built into that legislation in order to get at the trespasser himself, instead of his money. In the book Anti-Trust Laws, edited by Friedman, the following is maintained—

We must not get at that person’s money, but at the person himself. Is it not possible for the lawyers to think of a way of curtailing a person’s freedom, instead of, say fining somebody R20 000—for which he has made provision in his price in any event and if he is not fined, has it as an extra profit? Can one not get hold of a person like this and take away his personal freedom for a specific time? Whether hon. members want to recognize this or not, there are hundreds of different cartels in our country at the moment, and it is practically impossible to get one’s hands on these people.

However, the consumer also has a duty. He definitely cannot simply have the best of two worlds. The consumer must also do his share to ensure that the system which sees to his own personal survival, is lent substance. It is due to the profit motive and the capitalist system that consumers enjoy the progress they do today. We as consumers must see to it that we maintain and preserve this, for our descendants as well. Drastic discipline is necessary as far as our pattern of expenditure is concerned. Consumers are not quick to co-operate, and I want to give hon. members an example of this. Proper support of public transport facilities in South Africa will not be obtained before private transport to work is placed entirely out of reach of his financial abilities. Our petrol is too cheap for this and our motor cars are also, relatively speaking, too cheap for it. Even though we had the most comfortable and convenient transport system, the consumer could never be forced to use it instead of his private motor car, unless we make the latter too expensive. The consumer, for his part, must realize his responsibility, and take that responsibility upon himself in order to rectify the pattern before the Government compels him to do so by means of taxes, etc.

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour. The hon. member for Florida has continued to display a trend which has become more and more apparent in Government circles, viz. a recognition of the fact that there is a tendency towards creeping socialism within our State operation, and that one has to take a stand more strongly against the growth of bureaucracy and in favour of free enterprise. I shall have more to say about that later on in my speech.

The vote of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is coming up before the House this evening at an historic occasion, because the hon. the Minister will inherit a future in which the South African economy will be poorer as a result of the debate on Transkeian independence which took place earlier today. The economy will be poorer in land, people, raw materials and history. Therefore, the hon. the Minister’s task is being made that much more difficult. The hon. the Minister’s Vote must be seen today as the culmination of two important events, of which one was the devaluation of the rand, in September 1975, by some 18%, and the other was the main Budget which came before the House a mere two months ago, in which the hon. the Minister of Finance presented to South Africa his plan for the economy of the country during the coming year. On that occasion the hon. member for Constantia likened the hon. the Minister of Finance to a doctor administering very severe medicine to an ailing patient. I want to liken the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to a nurse who will now have to account for the continued state of ill-health of the patient. I only hope that he does not become the undertaker who has to bury that patient completely.

If one looks at the trend of business conditions since the budget speech, one finds that there has been a deterioration in business confidence. While isolating the actual illnesses—to continue with the hon. member for Constantia’s metaphor—we have not been able to handle them. I think this House should recognize the illnesses which still confront the economy of our country. We have inflation at double figure rates while we have a rapidly escalating cost of living. The cost-of-living figure was only recently announced by the Department of Statistics and stands at 17,4% for the last 12 months. It is a very high figure which becomes very distressing. As the hon. the Minister shakes his head, I wish to quote the following from The Argus of 4 June 1976—

Inflation itself continues at a double figure rate and we have the situation where confidence of the business community, excluding those sectors that are involved in the export business, is certainly on the wane. There is no sign whatsoever of the man in the street being relieved from the extremely high prices with which he is confronted today. I think I should list a few of these. The price of milk increased within the last few days by 1,5 cents per litre in the Cape and by 2 cents per litre in the Transvaal. The price of margarine was increased, and cooking oil went up by 14%. The egg price has gone up while egg surpluses were exported in April at a loss of some R5 million. The prices of petrol, cement, travel and steel also went up.

As Mr. J. P. Coetzee, the managing director of Iscor, has said, the steel price will have a ripple effect causing cost and price increases in hundreds of items, from cars to refrigerators, hardware, machinery and high-rise buildings. Electricity and rates have gone up by some 20% in the Cape this month. The cost of living in Cape Town is up by 11%, in East London by 13%, in the Vaal Triangle by 13%, in the Free State gold-fields by 12% and in Pietermaritzburg by 11%. Vehicle licences have gone up by between 20% and 50%. This is enough to disturb the most hardened cynic. When we think of the impact this has on the man in the street, then we realize that the hon. the Minister has much to account for in the work of his department.

I want to go further by saying that the hon. the Minister is confronted by the fact that South Africa, if we are to maintain our defence security, must export or bust. The need to export has become absolutely vital. I was privileged, as a guest of the hon. the Minister, to be at a State Export Awards Dinner in Johannesburg a few weeks ago where four firms were awarded medals for their export achievements during the past year. The firms were Impala Platinum, S.A. Manganese, Andrew Mentis and Western Province Preserving Company. I do hope the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity when replying to this debate to indicate to South African export firms just how they can qualify for these awards and how they can qualify to support cur economy to the extent to which it must be supported. I believe that when we say “export or bust” this is sincere. We cannot rely only on our gold and diamonds. We cannot rely on our secondary industries and on our agriculture. We have to ensure that the exporter in South Africa takes his task seriously. Last year the Government voted a sum of R40 million for export promotion and we also have an export credit scheme which enables exporters to benefit. However, there has been criticism from overseas. These critics have indicated that South Africans do not, in fact, take their export manufacturing seriously and merely cash in on periods when they have surplus capacity and then do not fulfil future contracts, to the disadvantage of South Africa However, there are two sides to every question. If one has to export one also has to import. Here I want to refer to the fact that in a question across the floor of the House which appeared on the Order Paper yesterday, the hon. member for Walmer asked the hon. the Minister a simple question which was worrying commerce. Assocom has made representations to most members of the economic team on this side of the House. They were anxious to know why the allocation of 2nd round import permits for consumer goods was being delayed beyond the month of May. Although the hon. member asked the hon. the Minister this question on two occasions—he asked the question as recently as yesterday—the hon. the Minister replied across the floor of the House that the question would have to stand over. To my amazement the first indication was given, I understand, on television last night that the hon. the Minister had made a full statement to the Press and had set out the position in detail to the satisfaction of both commerce and the traders concerned. I submit that the hon. the Minister, who has a record of courtesy, has come very close to contempt of this House because, when asked two weeks ago by an hon. member for information which is neither strategically important …

How do you know?

I know very well that over the years import permits have been allocated to commerce and that they are always made public. They are published in the Press, and what was not strategically important yesterday has not become strategically important today. I merely feel that the hon. the Minister might have had the courtesy to indicate to the hon. member that he would be making a Press statement later. The fact is that the House should have been informed.

In the final analysis I want to say a few words about import control and appeal to the hon. the Minister not to clamp down unnecessarily on import permits. You see, Sir, there are two sides to the coin. If we want to export our apples to Europe, if we want to export our raw materials, our oranges, our fruit, our dried flowers, etc., we cannot expect to be an exporter and not an importer. Equally, in the departmental report on the policy relating to the protection of industries, the following was said about imports controls—

The hon. the Minister will know that in the endeavour to fight inflation, it is necessary that there should be strenuous competition in the fields where the consumer is most affected.

As far as inflation is concerned, I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with the highly unsatisfactory position reflected in Press reports relating to the anti-inflation campaign. The hon. the Minister has called a meeting of the Collective Action Committee for a few days ahead, but I want to say that, in the case of this collective action campaign, which received so much publicity and which started off with so much goodwill on the part of private enterprise, all public bodies and the Government itself, it is a tragedy that this campaign has fallen into disrepute. The Government is partially to blame. The Railway budget led to increased prices, and as a result of many other actions which have been put into effect by the Government, prices are rising inordinately. The man in the street, who has been called upon to make the utmost sacrifices in order to ensure that the campaign is successful, is becoming somewhat cynical. Unfortunately many of the parties to the campaign are now withdrawing their conditional support. I see that only recently the labour sector has said that they may not continue their support unless signs can be shown that the hon. the Minister and his department can bring about a reduction in prices, and I hope that will become effective because it will be a tragedy if it is not achieved.

Then I want to comment upon a report which reached our desks only yesterday, namely the annual report of the S.A. National Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council. I believe that the hon. the Minister should indicate to this House in more detail the work which this council is carrying out. This session, more than any other session, has been noteworthy for the fact that Parliament has recognized the right of the consumer to protection against illegitimate acts on the part of commerce and industry, and the watchdogs that have come into effect this year will go far to allaying the fears of the consumer who needs this sort of protection, but I believe that the National Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council has not the teeth, nor has it the power, nor has it the finances, to be really effective. It would appear from its report that it is broadly based on Pretoria and in the northern areas and that it does not have much effect or force in the southern areas.

I believe that the budget which is applicable to this council should be increased and I believe that far more publicity, even over television, should be given to this Council. I believe this House should recognize that the members who serve on this council do so in a voluntary capacity. They are not policemen. Their force is directed more at education, and they can gain the goodwill of the public and of South Africa in general if they are given the support which the Government should give them. I believe that their budget should be increased considerably.

Then I want to deal briefly with the questions of free enterprise, which we on this side of the House have promoted year after year. I believe that throughout the world today there is a growing recognition of the fact that the portals of free enterprise system are being battered down, I will not say by creeping socialism, but rather by a growing tendency towards excessive bureaucracy. I think that as the subject has been mentioned earlier this evening, I should indicate what is worrying not only those of us on this side of the House, but those who sit in the Government benches or in Government circles. I quote from Volkshandel of May 1976—

Mr. Chairman, this is not common to South Africa alone, and it is recognized both in America and Great Britain that if we value our economic freedoms, our personal freedoms and our political freedoms, we must speak out loud and clear in favour of the free enterprise system, in favour of the capitalistic system, and we must educate our public not to believe that the word “profit” is a dirty word.

A first cousin to communism.

The difference between profit and profiteering is vast. In all of the 200 years in which South Africa has shown the maximum growth, the largest number of poor people have gained the maximum possible advantages through the growth of free capitalism. Capitalism can only grow because of one factor, and that is profit. It is the retained profits in any company that enable the company to grow and to become economically strong. If we in this country had not been the virile, independent, free, competitive people that we are and the society we are, South Africa would be way back and would not rank amongst the great economic countries of the world.

This is not a matter of carping, petty politics. I would say that every member on this side of the House—and I know that I enjoy the support of the hon. member for Florida— would say to this Government: Let us free the shackles under which free competitive enterprise has been suffering; let us reduce State enterprise as much as we can. Having lifted major enterprises off the ground, let us return them to the control of competitive enterprise and do not let us say that we cannot, as a free enterprise system manage tasks of the size performed by the large stage corporations. What the gold mines, the diamond mines and the steel industry can do, can be done by ordinary South Africans with the names of Van der Merwe, Van den Heever, Louwrens Muller, etc. I would say to the hon. the Minister: Please come to us and tell us how severe the economic situation in which we find ourselves is. Be more informative than the hon. Minister of Finance and tell us about our balance of payments difficulties. Tell us about our foreign exchange reserve difficulties and as we are in a laager situation today, the hon. the Minister has the assurance from this side of the House that when South Africa is in economic trouble, we will come to its aid as we always have done.

Mr. Chairman, before I react to what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said, I first have a very pleasant task to perform. This is to praise the former chairman of the Economic Affairs group on our side of the House. This is the hon. member for Paarl. For many years I had the honour of serving under him as secretary of the group and also serving with him in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, where he accomplished a very difficult task in a brilliant way. We convey our sincere thanks to the hon. member for what he did for this Parliament. We honour him for it. What was most pleasant about him to me, was his fine friendship and loyalty towards the hon. members of the House. Without taking parties into consideration he treated everybody with equal courtesy.

Then, to begin with, I also want to say that I should like to pay tribute to another person and this is perhaps the person who is occupying the hottest seat in the Cabinet today. I am referring here to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I appreciate the serious way in which he tackles his task. I appreciate his purposefulness and his competence and I am sure that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens will agree with me. He has already mentioned his courtesy. I wish the hon. the Minister all of the best in this very difficult task.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to the free economy. We on this side of the House have a greater trust in the free economy, I think, than his side of the House does. Has it not been under the rule of the Nationalist Government in the past 28 years that South Africa has become an industrial country of considerable size? It is among the first 16 countries of the world in the sphere of economics. What better testimony than this do hon. members want? I can mention further points. I have the honour to represent an industrial constituency. I have the closest contact with my industrialists. They are not all supporters of my party, but without a single exception they have the greatest praise for this Government precisely because in spite of our problems, in spite of the difficulties, this Government has enabled the private entrepreneur to make a profit and consolidate his business.

Do hon. members know what is a major problem in my constituency? The problem there is to find parking space for the cars of employees. It is a real problem, but it also testifies to the progress which is taking place there. As a result of the oil crisis it is possibly to our disadvantage that there are so many people who can afford motor cars.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to the steel industry. Of course, he does not have to listen to me; he may continue to talk to his friends. In my constituency there are the three largest wholesale steel merchants in South Africa. I do not want to mention their names now, but I think the UP and even the PRP would like to have the opportunity which I have, because I receive their contributions towards my election expenses because this side of the House is the best Government which the country has ever had.

You are blowing your own trumpet.

I should like to praise the hon. member for Florida. I want to congratulate him on his fine speech, and also on all his previous speeches. That is a young man who has a really good grounding in economics.

Now I want to come to the department itself. This is a department which has many problems today. The Department of Economic Affairs naturally plays a very large role in the activities of all the departments in South Africa and in every facet of the economic life of this country. The farmer who is not an economical farmer, is not an asset for South Africa, and the department also plays a role there. The housewife who does not buy judiciously, also threatens the economy. The serious rate of inflation, to which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred, is a real problem, but it is not a problem unique to South Africa. To a large extent we are dealing with an imported disease. However, it is a problem which we must definitely get the better of. Last year I had the privilege of speaking to British industrialists in London, and if there is one thing which they envy us—and I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North will be able to confirm this because he is here rather than there—is the fact that we have succeeded in bringing together the entrepreneur, the agricultural sector, the public sector and the employees sector in order to discuss this problem of inflation and make plans to combat this threat to our economy. No country in the world has yet succeeded in this. This is fine progress, in spite of the criticism of the Press and in spite of the fact that people have lost their confidence in the action. I have faith that that action will succeed, provided of course, that we are all prepared to work together.

It will not work.

If that hon. member had remained in his previous profession, it would have testified to faith. However, he is here because he does not have faith. I have spent too much time on other hon. members. However, there is a point which I should still like to make.

I am pleased that you have a point.

People often ask just how one can economize. In reply to this I should like to select one sector, that is those who own motor cars, the motorists. There are approximately 3 million motor cars in the country, and if every motorist should save 30 litres of petrol a month—and this is very easy to do—it would mean that South Africa could save R200 million per year in petrol alone.

They should simply use bicycles.

Yes, all right. This is very possible. During the depression years—this was when the UP was in power—I

Oh, bitter days!

It was the NP who caused the depression.

During the depression years a coupon system was in operation and petrol could not be freely purchased. It is not only the private motorist who has to play a role and save petrol; the commercial vehicles must also play a role. Motorists like members of Parliament must also save petrol. I want to point out to the country that the motorists of Parliament, the members of the House of Assembly, are setting the finest example. We travel by bus. Does the hon. member for Durban Point, who travels with us, know how much petrol we save? We save 10 000 litres per session because we travel by bus. This is a fine example. Every member of the population can save. The housewife who does her shopping, should rather do it once every two weeks instead of every week, because then she saves half the petrol which she would otherwise have used. In this sphere there is much room for improvement. I think that we travel too much for pleasure. Near my constituency on the N3 speedway, 40 000 cars travel every day and on Sundays it is as much as 60 000 per day. People take joy-rides. I believe that we should also curtail our joy-rides. It is really not necessary for us to travel so much.

What annoys me, is that public opinion and the Press do not play the role which can be expected of them. The Press interprets and forms public opinion, but the Press belittles the petrol issue. If some public person travels say, 5 km per hour too fast, not on the open road, but in the area under the jurisdiction of a local authority, the Press makes a great fuss about it. It is big news, but what the Press should make news of, is the fact that we have to spend millions of rands per year in the form of foreign currency in order to be able to buy petrol. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Germiston District, but one remark worries me. If he thinks that this country is in for the same fate as that of Great Britain, I would be slightly worried about that. However, one thing is quite clear and there the hon. member is quite right. The same fault is being made in this country as was made in Great Britain. Its name is quite simple: The level of Government expenditure.

On the other hand I should like to say to the hon. member for Paarl that we wish him well now that he has retired as chairman of the Economic Affairs group of his party. We should also like to wish the hon. member for Germiston District well as he takes over. In fact, things can only get better. If things do get better, we shall not hold the present rather unfortunate state against the hon. member for Paarl, and we shall be delighted if next year the hon. member for Germiston District will be able to take a more cheerful line.

We should like to have a consistent theme running through the course of the debate on the Votes of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister will hear from my colleague the hon. member for Yeoville and myself about two particular subjects. The one is inflation which will surprise nobody and the second one is the exclusion of Black and Brown citizens from the benefits of the operation of private enterprise within a mixed economy such as we have here in South Africa. These are matters which affect in a very direct and immediate way every one of us because they hit basically at the pocket of each person who lives in South Africa.

The first is of course immediate, and it is a disease from which the patient has been and is still seen to be suffering. The other is much more dangerous and insidious. It is like a cancer in the sense that it has not yet surfaced, but unless the Government is prepared to treat it, it will in the end prove terminal to the citizens over which it operates. We should like to go back because it is relevant to remember the pomp and ceremony with which the collective programme to fight inflation was launched on 7 October last year. Great stress was laid on the firm commitments given by the Government as well as by the unions and the private sector and much was made of the five main components of the programme. The five components—I am taking them from the Press release—are the following: Firstly, the introduction of a country-wide educational, publicity and information programme; secondly, the expansion of production and the improvement of productivity with special reference to the more effective training and utilization of labour; thirdly, Government action in respect of fiscal, financial and other fields of policy; fourthly, Government action in regard to legislation and regulation which have or may have an inflationary effect; and, finally, and most important, the exercise of the utmost restraint in connection with increases in wages, salaries and prices. I repeat: “With the utmost restraint.” Nearly nine months later, the question that needs to be asked is: Where do we stand and what judgment is the public of South Africa going to form on the collective programme to fight inflation? The answer is short and simple: In its totality the programme up to now has failed.

Let me deal more specifically with these points. The first component I mentioned is more in the nature of an exhortation. Exhortations can work upon people only where people feel it is fair and equitable that they should do their bit and not, as has proved to be the case up till now in our country, where the large majority of them simply see themselves as the unfortunate victims of actions or decisions taken by others. The second component, the one concerning labour, is extremely laudable and essential for an improvement in our economic performance, but in practice it has turned out to be nothing more than lip-service. The bars placed in the way of our vast potential, which lies in our Black and Brown labour, have not been removed other than to a very limited degree. The third, fourth and fifth components were always the key and in this respect people in South Africa have simply lost heart. People can swallow tough medicine if they can see light at the end of the tunnel, in the sense of a reduction in the rate of inflation. They will not cry over spilt milk, in the sense that the pass we have been brought to by this Government arises out of the excesses of this Government’s expenditure in the past and in its failure to cut its coat to meet this country’s cloth. The people will accept that it is time to draw in their belts. However, what they find extremely difficult to understand is that at a time when, for the second year running, we are experiencing a rate of growth below what one would call the margin of safety, there is a continuous and seemingly endless stream of price increases announced by the Government. Some of these have been mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. A short and important part of that list would include the increase in taxation contained in the last budget, the price of steel, higher rail tariffs, higher licence fees in the Transvaal and in the Cape Province, higher margarine prices, higher milk prices, higher maize prices, higher petrol prices, higher car prices as well as higher prices for cement, bricks and electricity. That is merely a small synopsis of what has happened so far. I could go on adding to the list. In a very direct sense it is in respect of the basic commodities and services that prices have been put up. As such, it is going to be a savage blow to the poorer among us, and it is going to be a particularly savage blow to the aged, the pensioners, the retired and other people who live off fixed incomes. Even though that is bad enough, in the case of Black families it may well prove to be an intolerable burden, as we indicated in the budget debate, and it has certainly caused the spectre of serious unrest to be raised.

Further, a survey conducted by the Bureau of Economic Research at Stellenbosch has shown that one in every four White families has been forced to dig into savings to meet running household bills and many White families are sliding deeper into debt. All of that is disastrous enough in itself, but what has destroyed the support for the collective campaign against inflation is really four things. Firstly, there is no end in sight. The rate of inflation is still running in excess of 11%, although it did drop to 10,9% in February 1975. What is frightening people is that it is more likely to rise than fall in the months to come. So, unhappily, Dr. McCrystal’s prediction that it will drop to 6% by the end of the year appears unlikely to be attained. What worries people even more, is that the wholesale price index, which is usually a fairly accurate barometer, has risen steadily during the first four months of this year. In January it was 14,4%; in February 14,9%; in March 15% and in April 15,8%.

The second thing which is a matter of major concern to people—though not so direct or immediate—that all the benefits that were extolled by the hon. the Minister of Finance as a justification for the devaluation, which is nothing more than a settlement with his creditors—and which might otherwise have been achieved by our exports—have been substantially, if not completely, eroded.

The third factor about which people are worried, is wages. The vast majority of people are wage earners. They always tend to be increased later, and, of course, the unions, and workers regard that as inequitable, and the climate is not such as to favour them.

Those three factors combined, produce the fourth factor, which is that the public has lost confidence in the Government’s ability, if not its determinations, to make the programme become a success. Nor can it honestly be described as helpful, when the hon. the Minister, when asked to furnish a list of the price increases granted by the Price Controller, has to reply that the information is not available and that it would take months for that to be extracted. Of course, the Government will try to shift the blame. It will try to find scapegoats, but all of us should remember four simple facts. Compared with ten years ago, every citizen in South Africa, broadly speaking—I am talking in averages—was saving roughly the same proportion as he had in 1966. Each South African is actually spending less than he did in 1966, and the difference lies in increased taxation levied by this Government. Before anybody comes with this excessive profit story, may I say that profits as a source of national income have dropped from 25,7% to 20,8%. Therefore, when the general public look at this list, all they have to remember, is that the answer to why they have to endure this high cost of living, lies in the actions, the policy and the decisions of this Government.

Mr. Chairman, as far as I remember, the hon. member for Johannesburg North has now been a member of this House for approximately two years. As far as my knowledge goes, he has not once stood up and expressed his thanks for the fact that he lives in this fatherland of ours. He has never adopted a positive standpoint in favour of this fatherland in which he is accepted as a citizen of South Africa. I wonder, when he sits in his office in Johannesburg—and the hon. gentleman is a big businessman—and when he calculates his profits, whether he speaks the same language as that which he speaks in this Parliament. I do not believe that this is the case. I believe that the hon. member for Johannesburg North has to learn that defeatism and pessimism is not the language which he should speak. I do not believe he has the right to do so.

He made a very sneering remark about the “pomp and ceremony” with which our anti-inflation committee was set into operation. This is an effort being made by all our people throughout the country. Therefore, to criticize it here at this point and to be disloyal towards that effort, is, in my opinion, unfair towards the effort and unfair towards the people in the private sector and in the public sector who are at least trying to combat the disease of inflation.

The hon. member expressed his concern about the poor and the aged. However, it has been the NP which, over the years, has extended a helping hand to this category of person. It has been the NP that has tried to ensure a better economic living for these people than the one which they knew previously.

When the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was appointed to his present post, thousands of businessmen, industrialists and traders congratulated him by way of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and said—

This is what the hon. the Minister had been doing since the day he took up his position in that hot seat to which the hon. member for Germiston District referred. Try to build—this is the philosophy of the hon. the Minister and his department. They believe in pure economic thought and, if at all possible, increasing the standard of living of our people—White, Brown and Black. They believe in healthy, energetic formation of capital. They believe in writing “Save!” on the banner and making it their motto. Furthermore, they also encourage the profit motive and I know, too, that the hon. the Minister is an enemy of the exploitation of the man in the street. He also believes, because he says and proves it, that economic soundness in South Africa is a guarantee for the stability of the country. Therefore I am grateful that I can praise him and his department for what they have already done in the period that is past.

I maintain that the wrong impression exists among many people that the Government alone is responsible for the condition of inflation in South Africa. They believe that the Government is the cause of it and that it alone is responsible for combating this disease. I am afraid that John Citizen, and here I include myself, is too quick to absolve himself from any responsibility and often stands aloof by saying that the Government is to blame and that the Government must find a solution in order to have the struggle against inflation succeed. The second mistake in our approach is that the Government is also solely responsible for the price increases and that the Government alone must wage the war against price increases. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Germiston district, who put the matter so effectively when he said that we must all co-operate and agree, whether we are employers or employees, whether we are housewives or farmers, or whatever our job may be, because everyone has a duty to stand together in order to combat the problem. I have another problem. Yesterday morning I attended the annual conference of the KWV. When price adjustments were requested at the beginning of this year, 8 000 viticulturalists decided to support the Government’s anti-inflation struggle. Therefore the minimum price was determined so that the producers themselves would carry more than 30% of the increased costs with which they were faced. This was their decision, and therefore the 30% was taken into consideration in the price which was announced. What did the price increase mean for the producer? A price increase of 0,92 cents was allotted to an ordinary bottle of white wine. However, the wholesaler increased the price of the bottle of wine by 3,9 cents, while the reailer increased the price by 5 cents. Hon. members must bear in mind that the producer received a price increase of 0,92 cents. However, he also had extra expenditure in the course of the year because his production costs increased immensely. As far as fortified wine is concerned, such as sherries and port wine of which many hon. members are so fond, an increase of 2,1 cent per bottle was allowed the producer. The wholesaler, however, increased the price by 5,58 cents and the retailer by 9 cents. When the producers increased the price of brandy, the producer obtained 5 cents more per bottle. However, the wholesaler immediately added 13,25 cents per bottle to his price, while the retailer increased his price by 45 cents. This product is considered by some people as being an unimportant agricultural product, but I am taking this fact as an example of the fact that there are people who do not always co-operate with the Government to keep prices low. The traders must not tell me that they experienced a high price increase or that their annual current expenses are higher than those of the producer. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether the wholesaler and retailer have not made excessive profits this year from these products which they handled and sold.

In the second place, I want to ask hon. members not to try and make politics out of the inflation bug which is plaguing us. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is a very good friend of mine and I am very fond of him, but tonight he once again presented a Jeremiad here. He was very pessimistic and only handed out blame. Let hon. members of the House spread the word that the Government is in earnest and that it is not only the Government that is guilty, but that every person in the country also has a duty to combat inflation in such a way that we will beat it. I want to ask that all of us in this country maintain greater economic discipline.

The hon. member for Germiston District spoke about saving petrol. I want to mention a few more examples in which everyone of us can play a role. Many people buy imported articles, whereas they may obtain a similar article which is manufactured here in South Africa and which is of the same quality. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if what I read in the newspapers is indeed so. I read that there is a suspicion that a large amount of our imports consist of speculative imports. The same newspaper report mentions the fact that the hon. the Minister is considering instituting a deposit system for imports. If this is the case, we shall welcome it. I think that we in this country have sufficient possibilities and potential not to have to buy a shirt manufactured in France. Do we need to import so many women’s dresses to South Africa for which R800 and R900 is paid simply because they come from Christian Dior? I do not think this is always necessary because South African designers can produce the same or a better product. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is considering instituting a deposit system for imports? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Worcester must excuse me if I do not reply to the drift of his arguments, but I should like to compliment the hon. member on the very good speech he made. Various ideas have been raised tonight with respect to the so-called profit motive and I should like to dwell on this for a few moments. It is important for South Africa that rapid economic growth be encouraged, because as long as we remain economically and militarily strong, we have nothing to fear from the future. South Africa’s challenges are constantly growing and it will be proved that the free economic system, of which we are a supporter, will compare favourably and will remain attractive as against the other ideologies which are taking root in world economy. When one takes a closer look at this free economic system of ours from close by and compares it with any other competitive economic system based upon free initiative and private ownership, then one sees that profit is a motive in any undertaking.

It is only logical that there will be a striving for profit, because if no profit can be made, there will be no business. It is therefore in the interests of the country for profit to be granted a place of honour in the economy. The fact is that high profits lead to greater competition and access to trade and industry, while in a period of low profits, the more ineffective trader disappears from the scene. In a period of right liquidity and insufficient inflow of foreign capital, fixed investment in the private sector may easily become stagnant if undertakings do not undertake their own financing. This can only happen if the rate of profit is sufficient to make provision for ploughing back, maintenance of capital and further expansions. We must see to the maintenance of a free capitalistic economy at all times and we must believe that profit is the motive behind initiative, innovation and the entrepeneuring spirit. Profits must also be seen as a degree of compensation for the acceptance of risks which certain undertakings must take. One must recognize that the system of free enterprise and competition is based upon the profit motive and that it is the practical foundation upon which the development and progress of the West has been growing and flourishing during the past few centuries.

But seen in this framework, the consumer, the so-called “man in the street”, must never be overlooked. Trade and industry in South Africa must never be seen in isolation, but as a link in the chain of manufacturer to consumer, because any change in the pattern of expenditure of the final consumer will have major repercussions for the trader and industrialist concerned. It is as well for one to try and understand the language of the economist, the language of the trader and the language of the industrialist and to try to have an understanding of his problems. However, as I said, the consumer, the so-called “man in the street”, is just as important. When one speaks to a person like this, whether it be the housewife, the family man, the factory worker, the labourer or the professional man, and asks this person what his attitude towards profit is, one immediately receives an answer in which reference is made to annual reports of and Press reports concerning certain undertakings in which it is said that certain undertakings made more profit than in the previous year and that prices of items manufactured or distributed by these undertakings, have risen sharply. The general idea is that trade and industry, as seen in general terms by the man in the street, is making higher profits at the cost of the ordinary man. I want to tell hon. members that this is an unhealthy state of affairs and that, in all humility, there is confusion amongst the public as regards the role of profit. Organized trade has a duty to make the public aware of the positive role played by profits in the economy. It is very important, important in the interests of the country, for the trader, the industrialist and the consumer to accept one another as partners as far as this matter is concerned.

As has already been said, the general complaint is that trade and industry make too much profit to the disadvantage of the consumer. On the part of the trader and industrialist, it will have to be proved that they are not robbing the consumer and that the argument is not being abused that prices are always rising, that their profits are small, that profit is not determined solely by the gross profit margins and that under the present inflationary conditions, profits have to yield a return of more than 15% on capital in order to be able to continue with an undertaking. One must add that satisfactory salaries, wages, etc, must also be paid by a business. Provision must also be made for the replacement of equipment and supplies at ever-increasing cost.

Perhaps trade and industry must see to it that supplementary statements and other additional information are incorporated with the so-called conventional statements in order to provide the public with the required information. Traditional profit rates are no longer acceptable and give the public a distorted image. Pseudo-profits arise which are, nevertheless, taxed by the treasury. These pseudo-profits stem chiefly from supply profits which arise in a period of inflation, as well as by writing off too low a depreciation on fixed assets. These too-low cost items which are allowed by the Receiver, and higher profits which stem from the increase in prices of stocks, create a distorted image and are to the detriment of the cash flow of a business. This is eventually to the disadvantage of the consumer.

In trade and industry we find business undertakings—which are fortunately in the minority—which can be labelled as absolute exploiters. The Government—I am convinced of this because we have had experience of it—will do everything in its power to protect the consumer against this type of exploitation and if existing provisions are not sufficient, this House must grant broad powers to the Minister concerned and his department to enable them to take definite action against these people.

But few price increases can actually be ascribed to exploitation. One fully realizes that profits in trade are not necessarily as high as is generally supposed. In addition, one must also bear in mind that profits are extremely sensitive and subject to various economic fluctuations which take place. Should profit possibilities be limited, this could necessarily lead to a levelling-off of the economic activities and economic growth of the country. The Government will step in where necessary and must not be accused here of increasing bureaucracy, as has already been done tonight.

The interests of the consumer cannot be ignored. Private entrepreneurs must realize that the principle of consumer protection throughout the whole Western World has, to an increasing extent, become part of the decision in principle to be taken by the Government. On the other hand, the Government also has the greatest respect for free competition and private initiative and these must continue to be promoted more strongly. However, the private sector in our economy faces a major task because the responsibility for the protection of the consumer does not really rest with the State. However, the entrepreneuring group, whether in trade or industry, must act in such a way as to compel the confidence and trust of the consumer in their exercise of the profit motive, and in this way ensure that the profit motive will serve as a stimulant for further development and that profit will be used as a criterion of efficiency. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as one backbencher to another I would like to say to the hon. member for Overvaal: Congratulations and thank you for making a very enlightened speech. In fact, I wondered for a minute whether he was making a speech for the United Party, because this hon. member has made a speech in favour of the profit motive and in favour of free enterprise, and only through the profit motive can we create an incentive for the businessman to go out and to create the wealth which will make this entire country a prosperous one. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister has listened to the hon. member carefully, because I want to talk about the hon. the Minister’s recent decision not to accept the Board of Trade’s recommendation for an increase in the return on capital allowed to the sugar industry, a decision which I believe is jeopardizing the future stability of the domestic sugar price.

I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that the retail price of white sugar has varied only 2 cents per kg over the past 10 years. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what other food products in South Africa can claim an overall price increase of only 2,3% over the past 10 years, and in fact an actual decrease of 12,9% since 1970. This extremely low price is resulting in an increase in the consumption of sugar in South Africa of the order of 9% per annum. The per capita sugar consumption in South Africa is amongst the highest in the world because of this very low price. The retail price of white sugar in South Africa in October last year was 13,5 cents per kg, whereas in Australia it was 27 cents; in the United Kingdom, 42 cents; in West Germany, 54 cents; and in Japan 89 cents per kg. This rapid increase in the local consumption is far exceeding the overall growth of the industry’s sugar production, and as a result the surplus available for export—in regard to export the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said we have to export or go bust—is diminishing. It will cost the sugar industry R177 per ton to produce export sugar this year, while the industry is expecting an average export price of R276 per ton.

It is these sales which subsidize the local consumer. The cost of producing sugar for the retail market in South Africa will be R200 per ton this year, yet this sugar will be sold to the consumer at only R107 per ton. Thus the sugar industry—the sugar farmers and the millers—is subsidizing the local consumer to the tune of R112 million this year. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that only R83 million of this amount will come from export sales. The balance of R29 million will be paid from the Stabilization Fund, leaving only R37 million in that fund at the end of this current season. I would like to assure the hon. the Minister that this fund is going to be completely depleted next year if this situation is going to be allowed to continue. There is only one way to fight this problem, and that is to increase sugar production. To do this, there has got to be more incentive for those people who are prepared to invest in the sugar industry. I regret very much that the hon. the Minister is not listening to me because I spoke to him recently about the cane price, which during 1974-’75 allowed the farmers a return of R79 per ha. The hon. the Minister’s recent decision against the Board of Trade on last season’s crops actually reduced the farmer’s return on capital to only R66 per ha for that season. For the current season it will be R67-77, based on a return of 7% on an estimated value of R975 per ha for developed cane land. I see that the hon. the Minister is agreeing with me. I am very pleased about it.

At least you have got the facts right.

I have got the facts right.

Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to put a question to the hon. member.

I have not got the time, Mr. Chairman. Studies of cane development costs last year showed that the total cost to develop a hectare of land was R1 912 and if the farmer has to borrow money at 12% this will require a return of at least R229 per ha. I am not suggesting for one moment that there should be an overall industrial return of this order. I do believe, however, that there is much wisdom in the Board of Trade’s analysis which shows a desired return of R102 per ha based on a value of R1 200 per ha and a return at 8½%. The same applies to the milling industry where the Board of Trade recommended an increase in return from 14% to 19,9%. After all, the Board of Trade’s report stated that these recommendations were not unreasonable and that they would encourage investment in the sugar industry.

Let us look at this matter from the consumer’s point of view. The per capita consumption of sugar in South Africa is 40 kg per annum. If the domestic price were to be raised to allow the returns recommended by the Board of Trade, this would result in a retail price increase of 4,1 cents per kg. This would be 2,1 cents per kg more than what the housewife was paying six years ago. Expressed another way, this would mean that she would be paying 13½% more for her sugar than six years ago. I cannot stress this point sufficiently, because I believe that the hon. the Minister’s policy is undervaluing this commodity relative to others and that this policy is going to lead to a financial disaster in the sugar industry.

Expressed in yet another way: If the housewife, on average, uses 40 kg of sugar per year and the retail price increases by 4,1 cents per kg, it will cost her an additional R1,64 per year, or the price of one cinema ticket, four whiskies in the pub, or three packets of cigarettes, not per week or month, but per annum. I am appealing now that the hon. the Minister should take a good look at this, because the prosperity which the sugar industry has enjoyed during recent years as a result of their commitment to the free enterprise system has been due to hard work and to the sorting out of their own problems. For this reason I would like to tell the hon. the Minister and remind him of how the sugar industry has shared its prosperity with the people of South Africa. Even if he should give this increase which the Board of Trade recommended, the sugar industry, not the Government, would be subsidizing the housewife to the tune of R62 million per annum.

I should like to make another suggestion to the hon. the Minister. He has got to take a look at the contribution which the sugar industry makes to South Africa’s foreign earnings. This year it is going to be the third highest of any industry in South Africa and is going to earn about R232 million. Unlike other agricultural industries, all research work is financed, not by the South African taxpayer but by the sugar growers and millers themselves. They are going to spend R4½ million of their own money on research. Last year they gave R503 000 in scholarships for Blacks and Whites and in donations to worthy causes. They have contributed R5 million, at very low interest rates, to a loan fund for KwaZulu to encourage Black farmers to grow sugar cane, and recently they contributed another R5 million to a fund to encourage the development of blocks of sugar cane in KwaZulu and also for the establishment of three local agricultural training centres for Zulus. All expenses were paid from these funds. I see the hon. the Minister gave a sigh a moment ago. I do hope, however, that he will take what I have said in sincerity. I know he has had the sugar industry on his back, but I want to repeat my warning. He must allow the entrepreneurs in the sugar industry to go on producing sugar as they have done in the past, thus making South Africa’s sugar the best sugar in the world. The greatest demand in the world for export sugar is for South African sugar. The world is waiting for South African sugar, but the only way to ensure the continued prosperity of this industry is to allow the farmers of Natal and the Eastern Transvaal to get out into their fields, get their ploughs out, and start planting more sugar cane.

I must draw the hon. member’s attention to Standing Order No. 123.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to react to what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said because I think that that hon. member made a very good speech here in regard to and on behalf of the sugar industry. In fact, I cannot agree with him more than I am now going to do. When I say this to the hon. the Minister he will know how serious I am, for once I go so far as to agree with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, then it is a serious matter.

In fact I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in regard to this matter, and here I am referring in particular to the position of the smaller sugar-cane grower in places such as Pongola and elsewhere. I agree with the hon. member that this producer is not as prosperous, and that his position is not as satisfactory, as is generally presumed. There is the idea among some people that a sugar-cane grower gets rich quickly and that he is a very wealthy man. However, I can assure hon. members that this is not the case. The high price which is obtained for sugar on the overseas market creates an incorrect image of the position of the producer.

In reality the planter has very few bargaining rights. He is a very small cog in a big machine. From the nature of things he is unable to have strong representation on the S.A. Sugar Association owing to the composition of that organization. Representation is on a 50-50 basis, and the larger producer is of course in a better position to obtain representation. The smaller grower does not have much representation or bargaining power on the S.A. Cane Growers’ Association either because he is a smaller grower. On the statutory board he has just as little or even less representation. These people are farming on very expensive plots. The days of cheap plots are past. Today it costs a great deal of money to acquire such a plot. He works with very expensive equipment which is subject to a very great depreciation factor. He works with very expensive labour because his industry is an intensive industry. It is also a capital intensive industry. My submission is that the small grower’s return on his capital in terms of the present formula is relatively low.

The same applies to the maize farmers.

Today I am referring only to the sugar which is strewn over the porridge and not the porridge itself.

Relatively speaking his calculated entrepreneurial or managerial allowance is also exceptionally low. In the case of the big grower it is high, for he has a large turnover. His capital calculation on the value of his property is relatively high, but the small grower really has a relatively low income. In addition it should be borne in mind that he finds himself in a demarcated position for he may not produce anything in excess of what his quota allows him to produce. If he were able to produce more, it would have been more beneficial for him, for his costs would, relatively speaking, not have been so much higher. However, he is caught in the net which the quota entwines around him since he may not produce more than the quota allows him to. In this regard one can draw a comparison between the sugar grower and the wine farmer, but the latter is probably in a better position since he can receive something in return for whatever he produces in excess of what his quota allows. But he does receive a cheaper price for that part of his crop which was produced in excess, while the sugar grower receives nothing for that part of his crop which exceeds the quota.

I am of the opinion that the distribution of his yield among his partners and himself—that is to say, the miller, and so on—is extremely dogmatic. Substantial profits are being made on overseas markets, but the top layer—in fact, a very thick layer—is skimmed off for channellization to the stabilization fund. The result is that the income position of the grower actually remains static, while his cost position deteriorates as a result of the escalation in costs, and so on.

We know that the recommendations of the Van Biljon Commission in this regard were initially good. I think they could still serve a purpose even today. With ad hoc adjustments effected in them. However, those recommendations are in fact no longer scientific, realistic and satisfactory. For that reason an investigation was made by the department, and very clear recommendations were presented. It was recommended, inter alia, that a regular annual calculation and adjustment should be made in respect of basic costs. I agree with that whole-heartedly, for something like this is very necessary. Another recommendation dealt with the evaluation of capital and the return on it, as well as the entrepreneurial and managerial allowance which, according to the recommendation, should be fixed at R145 per ha, while at present it amounts to something in the region of R83 per ha. For the reasons which they advanced, and which I also want to advance—the high depreciation costs, the high replacement costs, the high price of suitable properties and so on—I believe that the recommendations were well-founded, and I also believe that assets ought to be valued at replacement cost and not at their historic book value.

I have great appreciation for the idea of a strong stabilization fund, and I think a stabilization fund is essential. However, I believe that a discrepancy is developing. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with a restricted capacity and income potential—a return which, I believe, is being calculated at only 7%—while cost increases are very considerable. We also find that the profits which are available do not accrue to the producer in sufficient measure. This of course creates an unfavourable position. If an increase were to be granted it would be taken from the profits which are made on the proceeds of the sugar crop and the marketing thereof abroad. Consequently such an increase would not be inflationary. It would come out of existing profits. Therefore it would not be inflationary. If it is borne in mind that these profits are in fact the producer’s own money, the profit he made, I think that he has a good case when he asks the Minister to consider an increase in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, in speaking of the economy, so often we speak of inflation and higher standards of living. In the process, I think, we lose sight of one of the most important things in our Southern African economic system, i.e. the urgent necessity for industrial decentralization. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said here earlier tonight that in the course of this debate, the hon. member for Yeoville would discuss the necessity for allowing non-White entrepreneurs to serve in an integrated White economic system. I hope to indicate in the course of my speech that it is urgently necessary for us to promote industrial decentralization more intensively, so that those people whom the hon. members on the other side wish to accommodate in an integrated economic system can be accommodated by us in economic systems which will serve the interests of their national development. This is very important to me, and if the hon. the Minister gives me a rap on the knuckles when he replies to the debate, I shall gladly accept it, for what I want to say this evening is a matter of the greatest concern to me. I am convinced that if ever it has been urgently necessary for us to give more momentum to our whole programme of industrial decentralization, it is necessary now. I realize that industrial decentralization ultimately depends on the strength of the economy. If the economy is not basically sound, if there is no growth, if the country has inflation problems, as is the case at the moment, one can hardly think of the kind of industrial decentralization action which I have in mind. However, when I look at the physical realities in South Africa, and when I look at the limited success, if I may term it so, which we have had up to now in our whole decentralization action, I do want to ask the Minister to employ all the means available to us to give greater practical effect and greater physical momentum to this programme in the years to come, in the interests of South Africa.

Last year the Decentralization Board dealt with just over 300 applications. If all those applications can eventually be put into practice, it will mean that in two years’ time, we will have created job opportunities in the decentralized areas for approximately 22 700 Blacks and 2 900 Coloured people. I want to relate this reality to another one, namely that in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973, we succeeded, with our collective decentralization action, in providing work for a number of Black people who formed only 67% of the total number of people we should have liked to place. During those three years, we provided work for 26 400 people, while we had aimed at 39 700. The 67% of the number we had taken as our objective was only 22% of the manpower increase in the Bantu areas. If we consider that 120 000 male Bantu appear on the labour market every year, of whom approximately 60 000 are in the Bantu areas and approximately 60 000 in the White area, one realizes what it means that over a period of three years from 1971 to 1973, 26 400 people were employed in the decentralized areas. If we look at the purchasing power of the Black people in South Africa—this is what the hon. members of the PRP must try to grasp—if we consider that the purchasing power of the Black people in South Africa was R3 725 million last year, of which R890 million represented purchasing power which was generated in the Bantu areas, and if we consider that the greater part of that R890 million also flowed back to the White economy, I want to suggest that in the light of these facts, we should take a very urgent and a very serious look at our whole industrial decentralization action. The Progressive Party policy amounts to the channelling of all the top brain power of the Black people into a central White economy and to the channelling of their total purchasing power. Upon closer examination, this is really nothing but the economic exploitation of the Black nations in South Africa. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to try and ensure that the top brain power of the Black nations and the top brain power of the Brown people are not accommodated in a central economy only—for the purpose of specific developments, they are in fact required there, to take account of the factual realities as well, especially since the Government also has to provide job opportunities to specific categories of people. We must remember that the Transkei is a reality; that it is a country with millions of people. Then there is also KwaZulu with its millions. We have homelands with millions of people who must be provided with work.

This is the one aspect of the necessity for industrial decentralization which I believe to be of vital importance. We must open up as many opportunities as possible to these people in their own areas, in their own economic structures. However, there is something else which worries me. If I say something this evening which I should not, I do so in a spirit of sincerity. I repeat that if I get a rap on the knuckles, I shall not mind. I should like to refer to the position in Pretoria. In Pretoria we have had great success with the industrial complex of Rosslyn. A few years ago, a start was made with the planning of a two-track railway line for non-Whites, running to the city centre from the adjacent Bantu area. In the meantime, circumstances have changed to such an extent that according to the present planning, the railway line will have to consist of six tracks. It is obvious that that project will be extremely expensive.

Major road building projects, such as the one here in Cape Town, cost many millions of rands. This is money which might have been applied with a view to industrial decentralization. If we consider all the socio-economic problems and implications of this, as well as the tremendous amounts of money—constantly increasing amounts—which are used for the development of ever-growing urban areas, I think it is appropriate for me to request the hon. the Minister to see to it that the programme of industrial decentralization does not slow down.

The accusation is always levelled at the Government that its programme of industrial decentralization is motivated by ideological considerations. As far as I am concerned, it is motivated simply—if I may term it so—by common sense. I refuse to be told that anyone can believe that increasing industrial concentration, which will become more and more expensive, in any case, offers the solution to any problem. People who profess to this opinion are really playing a political game. They are exploiting the existing situation with a view to political gain, and in the process their victims are the Black and Brown people of this country. What they should really be doing is to co-operate with the Government in the best interests of all the population groups in the country. It is in the interests of White, Black and Brown that the process of industrial decentralization should not be halted; on the contrary, it is a process which should constantly accelerate.

If more large industrial enterprises, such as Anglo-American, were to render assistance in South Africa, this should stimulate further the process of industrial decentralization. Members of such concerns, people with knowledge and skill, could make a major contribution to industrial decentralization. They could apply all the means available to them with a view to developing a strong southern African economic structure—an economic structure consisting of nations living in harmonious and peaceful co-existence—instead of keeping all the profits on their capital for themselves. What I am really advocating is an economic structure in which over-concentration will be eliminated. This is bound to lead to the removal of all the socio-economic evils which are closely associated with over-concentration all over the world.

Hon. members of the Opposition pretend that it is the fault of the Government that socio-economic evils have developed in South Africa. I advise them to take note of the situation in America at the moment. I read an article recently on the so-called ghetto crisis in America. It is a crisis which has arisen in a country which claims to have no discriminatory legislation. That condition is a direct consequence of wrong development and of economic abuses. We in South Africa also have to contend with socio-economic problems. For this very reason, the Government dare not allow a process of over-concentration to continue unchecked in our urban areas. This we cannot afford.

I consequently want to request the hon. the Minister to make every possible attempt, with the aid of the decentralization board, to carry out the process of industrial decentralization in South Africa as soon as possible. I believe that the hon. the Minister will not turn a deaf ear to such an appeal. He has already given us proof of his goodwill and his interest, in cases of this nature as well. We need only think of the great and improved concessions he announced last year. In a country such as South Africa, a country with so many possibilities and with such an enormous labour force, I ask the hon. the Minister to assist in stimulating and encouraging to a more rapid development the instruments of human material, including the non-Whites. One of the most important methods by means of which development of this nature can be promoted is the acceleration of the process of industrial decentralization in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Innesdal has, I believe, demonstrated the sort of make-believe world in which so many people live—so many people in this hon. House, if I may say so. Nobody is against decentralization of industry, but the tragedy is that somewhere there is the crazy dream that people are going to be happy all their lives to be migrant workers, to work for a capitalist system where the Whites get the profits and where they have to be the workers. If that is what they have in mind, it is the craziest thing that has ever been thought of in this world. [Interjections.] The whole debate on capitalism which has taken place here, is the strangest debate I have ever witnessed. Throughout the world, wherever one looks, one sees capitalism under siege. In the Western world, where capitalism is the theme, what does one see? One sees socialist parties gaining ground; one sees nationalization; one sees the fear of communism taking over in certain countries. Wherever one looks, one sees that capitalism is under attack. Capitalism has to deal with the situation, in every case, from a defensive position.

If I may, I want to deal tonight with capitalism, with free enterprise and with socialism. I believe that the old-time capitalism is dead. In fact, we must now try to propagate a free enterprise system in the true sense of the word. I also believe that the free enterprise system has to get on to the attack and attack socialism, instead of being on the defensive. If we do not do that, I believe that the true free enterprise system is doomed. It is all very well when people get all ecstatic about bureaucracy, the encroachment of bureaucracy and State interference. I am against bureaucracy; I am against State interference, but the real enemy of free enterprise in South Africa is not the creeping socialism people talk about; it is the real socialism which is being preached to the Black man in South Africa. That is what the real threat is, the real threat about which nothing is done, while we are indulging in a debate about academic things. That is what the real problem is in South Africa. However, we refuse to face that.

I want to stress my belief that if one tries to propagate 19th century capitalism, one is doomed. One has to propagate something which is new, something which can get on to the attack, something which can really show itself to be a true alternative to socialism. Show me any African State where a free enterprise system is flourishing other than in South Africa. Is there any other African country where one can say that a free enterprise system is flourishing? In most countries it does not even exist. The reason for that is that the people who have run the system there, have not been prepared to meet socialism on its own grounds; have not been prepared to deal with it. I want to know how much is being done in South Africa in order to teach people what free enterprise really means. I wonder how many people really know what it means. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how much literature is available to put across to people an understanding of the meaning of free enterprise. The test of free enterprise is not how good it is for the capitalist and how much profit can be made out of it. The true test of free enterprise is what it does for the man who has no capital; what it does for the worker and for the individual. Is he better off in a free enterprise system than he would be under socialism?

Yes!

Of course, I agree; but we are not telling him, and that is the tragedy of South Africa. Are we telling the Black man in South Africa that he should participate in free enterprise, and are we educating him to understand that? Are we giving him a real opportunity to participate in the system? This is what the problem is in South Africa. I saw the other day that Assocom is convening a conference in order to create an institute to fight against creeping socialism and they are spending all their time worrying about the hon. the Minister. I think that they should worry about who is teaching the Black man in the townships that capitalism should be overthrown, but nobody is paying attention to that. That is the real crux of what has to take place in South Africa. That is the real message of the debate that should be taking place here. If one believes in free enterprise, the greatest enemy is not the hon. the Minister and it is not the increase of socialism on the part of the Government, even though that is something which is undesirable. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister is a socialist, even though he sometimes acts in a way that seems to suggest that he is, and some of his actions encroach on these things, if he will pardon my saying that. I think we need to have a definition of where the function of the State ends, and how far it should go and how far it should not go. However, I want to say, so that there will be no misunderstanding about it, that where we have a society in which, due to lack of education and lack of opportunity, there is not equal bargaining power, I will support the hon. the Minister every time when he wants to introduce legislation in order to try to balance that bargaining power in the community. That is what the hon. the Minister needs to do. That is why the Trade Practices Bill was introduced, and that is why we supported it. We hope the hon. the Minister will act under it. We have also talked about consumer credit legislation. I have often spoken about consumer credit. A draft Bill has been circulated and withdrawn. However, it is not enough to amend the Hire Purchase Act. What is necessary in South Africa is to create the situation where people do not get caught in a system by means of credit, as a result of which they hate that system. The hon. the Minister knows, for example that once the Coloured people get into the grip of the people to whom they pay instalments week by week, they never get out of it, and they just have to keep on buying from the same business.

But I have said that.

That is right. However, what I am trying to say to the hon. the Minister is that the real enemy is not this encroachment I referred to, because the new system of free enterprise needs the action of the State in order to strike a balance between the people who are able to look after themselves and the others who are not.

Let me quote from the much abused statement of Mr. Heath, where he talked about the ugly face of capitalism. He was tackled in this regard, and this is what he said in reply. He said—

In other words, if there are abuses in the system and if there are imbalances, then the free enterprise system can only survive if one removes these imbalances. In the South African community, whether we like it or whether we do not like it, the consumer is percentagewise, gradually becoming more Black, and he looks upon the face of the capitalist as being a White face. The result is that the problem in South Africa is not only colour; it is a potential conflict between capital and labour, and the tragedy is that nobody seems to want to do anything about it. This is the danger and this is why one has to convince the people who represent labour, who are the Black consumers, that there is a place for them in the free enterprise system and that they can get to the top of the free enterprise system. That is the way one can get the system to survive.

Let me give hon. members some interesting figures. Do you know, Sir, that 21% of all tea-drinkers are White, but that 68% of tea-drinkers are Black? As far as the consumption of detergents is concerned, we find that only 21% of such consumers are White and that 70% are Black. When we come to correspondence colleges—a subject which I will deal with on another occasion as to what has to be done in that respect—where one would not expect to find so many Blacks, 36% of the consumers are Black. One of the tragedies is that we are not taking adequate steps in South Africa to see that the consumer is protected, whether his face be White or whether it be Black. The protection of the Black consumer becomes far more serious because its implications for the whole stability of the system are far more serious. That is why I appeal for action as far as the restoring of these balances and the projection of free enterprise as opposed to capitalism are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member for Yeoville too far on his socialist road, but I want to tell him that the National Government in this country has always been the only bulwark against socialism; because the Government is pre-eminently the champion of free enterprise and of democracy in its purest form. The hon. member can accept that the National Party is the guarantee for the continued existence of free enterprise in this country. In these distressful times we should be very grateful that South Africa rests on three strong pillars. In the first place there is a strong National Government. In the second place the country has an efficient Defence Force and in the third place the country has a viable economy. This is what I want to discuss with hon. members tonight.

The sound economic policy the Government has been following for the past 28 years gave South Africa the strong pillar of a stable economy. However, in recent times certain things have happened which threaten this pillar, and this is the economic recession which faces the world, the eroding inflation we are dealing with, as well as the new threat on the borders of the country. The very first thing Dr. Verwoerd did after the Sharpeville recession, was to tackle the Orange River project. At that stage it was the proper boost to regain confidence. After that we have developed our economy. The time has now arrived again for us to support his economic pillar. This can only be done by shaking off pessimism and not conjuring up sombre spectres of a depression. The danger is that economic handsuppers and prophets of doom could delay the country’s economic revival as we have heard in the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who painted a sombre picture. Entrepreneurs in this country can show their loyalty towards South Africa by not retiring into their shells in these times and shaking off their complex of fear and to proceed with optimism. What is necessary now, is boldness and confidence. Every farmer knows—and there are many farmers present here tonight—that one poor year does not mean the end of the world. It does not cause him to lose confidence in his farm either. It is in this spirit that hon. members should tackle the economic problems of this country.

I want to deal with another matter. I neither want to be provincialistic nor do I want to offend people, but I think hon. members should show appreciation for the financial discipline displayed by the Orange Free State in recent times through not increasing taxes at this stage. Natal followed the example of the Orange Free State and in doing so the Orange Free State has set an example to the country and has rendered a major contribution to the anti-inflation campaign. This the Free State did although it badly needed the increased revenue, particularly after its subsidy had been reduced by approximately R15 million. In addition, the Free State had unforeseen expenditure, inter alia as a result of roads which have been badly damaged by unprecedented rains. The temptation to increase taxes must have been great, but through careful consideration of priorities this has been avoided. Four years ago this province began to tighten its belt, and for this reason it could succeed in making ends meet with the minimum amount of money. Expenses were cut down drastically and productivity was increased. In this province many vacant posts are simply not filled any longer. The result was that taxes did not have to be increased. I want to congratulate the Administrator of the Free State, his executive committee and the officials who assisted them on an excellent achievement, an achievement of which cognizance should be taken in these times. One can only hope that this will be remembered in future when new funds are allocated. Very often the Free State is prepared to be the least and to make sacrifices in the national interest. I think the time has come for the Free State to receive some recognition for this.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North was shockingly negative when he spoke about inflation. He suggested that our anti-inflation campaign had failed and he put the blame for it fairly and squarely on the Government. In doing so, what does the hon. member say to the private sector and to the public? He tells the public that it need not do anything and that it need not make any contribution because it is the responsibility of the Government and no one else’s. In this way they dampen enthusiasm for a campaign which has already started to show some excellent results.

In spite of the criticism and the setbacks which have been experienced, we nevertheless had some success in our campaign against inflation. In 1975 there was a significant drop in the consumer price of essentials in three sectors. In the case of food there was a drop from 20% to 8,3%; in the case of clothing from 16% to 8,7%; and in the case of furniture from 15,1% to 9,7%. This success should serve to encourage us to throw in our full weight behind this campaign and not to relax our efforts. The combating of inflation is of critical importance and should not be allowed to go the same way as the fuel-saving measures. If inflation is allowed to continue unabated, it could weaken South Africa economically to the point where we would no longer be able to defend ourselves politically and militarily. The enthusiasm with which the anti-inflation manifesto has been received, is unique in the economic history of South Africa. It was very encouraging to see that a nation can join hands to such an extent in a time of crisis. People should not withdraw their support simply because they cannot have their way as far as salary claims are concerned. We shall have to make sacrifices to the point where it begins to hurt in order to save our economy. People will have to realize that it is our economy which maintains our Defence Force and that it is our economy which makes possible constitutional action, such as the establishment of our homelands. We undertake virtually no political action in Africa which is not supported economically. Inflation can be combated in two ways. The first is to combat inflation by means of increased production. During the past decade the annual increase in the production of workers in a number of countries was as follows: Japan, 10%, West Germany, 5%; Canada, 3,5% and South Africa only 1,7%. I do not want to blame the workers of our country and to tell them in season and out of season that they should work harder, because increased production has to be obtained by working more efficiently. 75% of the result depends on the management and the utilization of labour. We cannot combat inflation if we do not learn to live within our means. We shall soon have to accept a lower standard of living, because we have exceeded our limits by far. The serious times in which we are living demand from us that we should do without too much luxuries and comforts. Ryk Tulbagh, the Cape governor in the second half of the 17th century, also had problems in this regard. He introduced his Sumptuary Laws which were aimed at extravagant fashions in particular. Women were fined 25 rixdollars—approximately R10—if the dress she was wearing was too long and too extravagant. Only the more important citizens of the country were allowed to use umbrellas. If we were living in those times many of us would have been victims of these Sumptuary Laws.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North made a very good speech this evening and I have only one argument with him, viz. where he spoke about his province of which he is justifiably proud. The only thing the Free State lacks is a couple of good “Sap” members of Parliament, a few “Sap” MPCs and then everything will be in perfect order and condition.

I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister a situation which I believe deserves his urgent attention. It is a trade practice which is both undesirable and unintentional in some respects. I think it is being indulged in somewhat innocently. I am referring to the present position in respect of sales and excise taxes that are paid on passenger motor vehicles. I do not wish to argue about the merits or otherwise of the imposition of such taxes, because it is not in the field of this discussion at all. However, I should like to point out that the method currently employed in the collection of this money, leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, the method which is presently employed, constitutes an unnecessarily expensive hardship on the motor dealer and in many ways negates the ideal of free competitive enterprise which all of us in this country seek. It is also not collected in such a way that is beneficial to the State, and I think that the State is the loser to a large extent. For the purpose of this exercise, I have chosen three top-selling makes of vehicles which are currently manufactured in South Africa for the South African market. Sufficient to say, these three have all figured amongst the top five best sellers during the past few years. Because I have limited time available, I have created two composite models. The one is a small popular four cylinder sedan and the other is an average six cylinder sedan which will find favour both for commercial use and for the family man. To create these models, I have extracted the top sellers in each of these classes from the ranges offered by each of the three manufacturers. I then averaged the retail prices, dealer costs both gross and net, etc. I must point out that the net dealer cost is the cost to the dealer after the deduction of the tax which is currently being paid by the dealer to the manufacturer at the time the payment for the motor vehicle becomes due by him. This is usually against invoice. Incidentally, this is my main point of difference of opinion with the present practice. I shall return to that later.

Let us now look at the results. I think it is well, too, in honour of our hon. Minister, to call our new motor car the “Heunismobile”. We find that the four cylinder version of this fine vehicle retails at R3 238, its gross dealer cost is R2 762, the tax payable on that vehicle is R554, the net dealer cost is R2 208 and the gross dealer profit is R476, which is less than the taxation payable. The six cylinder version will retail at R5 243, the gross dealer cost is R4 381, the total tax is R839, the net dealer cost is R3 542 and the gross dealer profit is R862, which is slightly more than the tax payable. It will probably be a great surprise to most members of this House to find that the dealer gross profits are usually less than the amount of taxation which has to be paid on the cost of a new motor car. I think this House ought to know that a motor dealer’s gross profit on a popular four cylinder model is usually in the order of 17,5% and on a six cylinder model in the order of 19,5%. I must stress that these are gross profits. When one considers the high degree of competitive trading that takes place in the motor industry, and when one considers the discounts the dealer is expected to grant to fleet owners and to companies plus the pre- and post delivery expenses, to say nothing of the dealer’s overheads, there is not much left, and it is very easy for a dealer to fall by the way if he indulges in careless or injudicious trading.

The Government, however, makes a net profit that is usually equal to, or more, than the dealer’s gross profit. I submit that it makes this profit, without realizing it, at the expense of the dealer. I take as an example a metropolitan dealer who sells, say, 75 four-cylinder “Heunismobiles” and 50 six-cylinder “Heunismobiles” per month. In order to cater for the needs of his prospective clients, he should at all times carry at least six weeks’ stock on his floor. The total value of that stock would be to the order of R528 394. The tax, which the dealer will have paid to the manufacturer, amounts to R103 998. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this latter sum of money could more profitably be employed within the framework of the dealer’s business. The dealer pays interest on this money, and an interest of 12%—which is a modest percentage in this day and age—can cost him in excess of R1 000 per month. The manufacturer in the meanwhile has collected the tax from the dealer at the time of payment for these vehicles, and let me assure hon. members that this is invariably prior to the vehicles leaving the factory gates. However, the manufacturer only disburses these moneys to the respective Government departments on a quarterly basis. To be more specific, payment due in respect of vehicles manufactured for the months of March, April and May is only made on 28 June. It must be agreed that this state of affairs is badly in need of some examination and revision. I contend that since the tax is due and payable by the purchaser of the vehicle, it should be paid by the purchaser at the point of and at the moment of sale. To this end, I suggest that it could be done quite simply by that payment being effected to the Receiver of Revenue and by withholding the issue of any licences in respect of a vehicle until such time as a certificate is produced which clearly identifies the vehicle by the engine number, etc., whereupon the licence may be issued. I submit that this method would speed up payment of taxes due to the State with all the obvious attendant benefits. At the same time it would relieve the dealer of the unnecessary expense he currently suffers.

The argument may be put forward that other industries, such as the television, radio and furniture industries, will suffer the same fate. However, I submit that these industries work on a vastly different mark-up to the mark-up that pertains in the motor industry. I would suggest that the hon. the Minister could possibly answer any objections from those quarters by following these proposals. I propose that only in respect of those industries where the relationship between total taxation and dealer profits—that is to say, the gross profit from the manufacturer to end user—reflects a difference between the two of no greater than 20%, should my suggestions be put into force. My proposals should also only apply in respect of commodities that retail at over R2 000 per unit.

I cannot see how the system I have suggested can do anything other than benefit the State and private enterprise. The manufacturer may not agree with my submissions. I do not expect they will. It looks as if the hon. the Minister has caught this point rather quickly. Of course the manufacturer will not agree with my submissions. The simple reason is that he has been happily using the dealer’s capital, which belongs, in the ultimate, to the State, for his own means, and he has been doing so for possibly a period of between 30 and 90 days. Surely this is a situation that is to be deprecated. I feel that this is a trade practice that is worthy of very close examination. I thank the hon. the minister for his quiet smile. I earnestly appeal to the hon. the Minister to take action in this matter and I will be happy to make available to him the manufacturer’s price lists on which I have based my argument. I can prove my argument time and time again. I can only say that an unfair situation must be corrected, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will give it his worthy consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga will pardon me if I do not respond to his argument. I trust the hon. the Minister will furnish him with a satisfactory reply.

At this late hour of the evening I should like to express a few thoughts on inflation in pursuance of what was said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. Nobody can or dare underestimate the crippling affect of inflation. Personally I think this could be absolutely fatal for any country. In our own country we have experienced the problems of inflation and the particular demands it places on the Government and the population as such. But, alas, it seems as if we have become accustomed to it and that we are living as if matters will be straightened out eventually. To my mind we are too inclined to argue that we shall be able to weather the storm at some time or other and, so we argue, if we should have another crisis the Afrikaners would in any case stand together again and pull the wagon through the drift.

In the time at my disposal I should like to deal with the contribution that I and every citizen can make to combat inflation. I do not want to deal with economic theories and statements tonight. I want to refer to matters as we find them in practice. Although the rate of inflation dropped by approximately a ¼% to approximately 11,2%—the present rate of inflation—during the past 12 months, everyone of us has an enormous task to fulfil under the present circumstances. There is a great danger that many of us will behave with regard to the combating of inflation as we, unfortunately, behaved with regard to the speed limit. To my mind the Government has taken measures and is still in the process of taking measures against inflation. Surely, it is important that this should be the case. Some of those measures have affected the country, in the sense that we had to make sacrifices. Fortunately, it is also a fact that the hon. the Minister, in combating inflation, realizes that only such drastic measures can be taken which will not dampen growth completely and cause our economy to grind to a halt. I am of the opinion that the Government alone, as a result of this argument, cannot win the fight against inflation with all the restrictive measures it has to take. Inflation is the enemy everyone of us, adult and child, the rich man and the poor man, employer and employee, should fight. It makes no difference who it is—everyone has a task in combating inflation.

I now ask myself: What do we really want to achieve when we launch the fight? Or, put the other way round: What do we have to do to combat inflation? In the first place I want to say that we want to increase our productivity and that, on the other hand, we want to bring about greater efficiency. I want to emphasize that we shall have to work more efficiently and not necessarily do more work. It is not necessary to work harder, as it were. In order to achieve this, it necessarily follows that we need planning. Whether it is the factory owner who has to work out the duties of his hundreds of employees or whether it is the housewife who goes out to buy the monthly groceries, a great deal of planning should be done beforehand in respect of the action that is about to be taken. The maximum potential of every employee can only be utilized through planning. The most beneficial purchases can only be done when purchases are made according to a pre-designed plan.

In the second place we also have to teach the people to live within their means. In other words, not to take out of economy more than they themselves can put back into it. Whether we like it or not we shall therefore necessarily have to drop our standard of living. I do not say we should lead a life of poverty, but we shall have to learn to make ends meet on the same income in the face of price increases and of a general rise in the cost of living. Of course, this would mean that we would have to make do with less. We shall have to forfeit certain privileges, or at least some of them, to which we have become accustomed in this enormously high standard of living we have at the moment. The question immediately arises whether it is possible and whether we are in a position to do so. I think it is certainly possible, and I should like to quote a few very simple practical methods.

At the same time I want to ask myself: Do we use the telephone judiciously? I do not want to make it difficult for Telecommunications as such to balance their books, but the question arises whether I am not inclined to use the telephone to telephone my neighbour when I can simply walk around the corner and speak to him. This is only a minor, modest example. I want to pose thus further question: Is it necessary for me to buy a new car every second, third or fourth year? Once again I do not want to harm the motor industry, but I ask myself whether or not this is necessary. Is it really necessary for a family to have two motor-cars when taking in mind that families have managed without two motor-cars during the past decade? Is it necessary to buy the second motor-car? Although I want to emphasize a holiday as a necessity, I want to ask whether it is essential for me to have such a luxury holiday, or can I also enjoy a rest even though I do not have such an extremely luxury holiday?

I want to mention another very simple example which worries me. This is the question of fashions. I wonder how much money leaves any country and nation as a result of a change in fashions? Probably this is a problem we cannot solve very easily. I know it is probably due to the weakness of the human being in saying that he would rather be prepared to sacrifice something else than be out of fashion. I think we should develop some sort of resistance against these fashions. Whether it is the ladies as in the old days or, alas, now also the men, makes no difference but all of us should develop a resistance against these so-called fashions and we should not allow ourselves to fall an easy prey to them.

When mentioning these things, someone will tell me that we are dealing with minor matters. It is the little birds that harm the vineyard most. I only want to mention this example to hon. members, i.e. that if every adult resident of the White area of South Africa would spend only 20 cents less per day, our national expenditure would be reduced by R55 million per month. Coming to think of it, this is a substantial amount. I am afraid we shall have to relinquish the claim that, merely because the cost of living has increased, salaries and the prices of our products have to be increased as well. Statistics show a greater increase in income than in the cost of living, and that the spending of increased income increases at the expense of savings.

I shall try briefly to prove this by means of three examples. In the decade up to 1974 there was an annual increase of 1,7% in production per man hour work in the manufacturing industry. As against this the average cash wages have, however, increased by 7,3%. A second example is that the cost of living increased by approximately 50% during the nine years up to 1975, while salaries and wages increased by 80% in the non-agricultural sectors. I want to mention a third example in respect of savings. In the middle of the sixties, 12% of the available personal income was saved as against only 10,6% in 1974. The deduction can therefore be made that although we have a rise in the cost of living, increase in income was even more, but such larger increase in income is not saved, but used to spend in a more extravagant manner. In other words, the more money we receive, the more we spend and this is very definitely not a way to combat inflation. It is rather a way to promote inflation. My request is therefore that we, as a nation, should decide to work more efficiently, that we should be prepared to save and that we should even be prepared to reduce our standard of living a little. If we did this we should have the necessary stimulus for this fight against inflation.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that everyone will support the plea of the hon. member for Virginia that each citizen should do his duty to fight inflation.

†However, I want to speak about the efforts of the Government in fighting inflation. The Government spearheads its fight against inflation by way of the South African Coordinating Consumer Council, as I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree. I admit that this approach has been successful to a degree, but it has not been as successful as we would wish. In many cases the publications that are sent out tend to state the obvious. I have a few examples here. In one instance it is stated that a lady should draw up a shopping list before going to the supermarket, should not allow the shopkeeper to plan her menu, should eliminate daily shopping trips and should not invite salesmen in if they are selling articles she does not want. This seems to be stating the obvious, and there are many more items like that. There are, of course, some very useful hints, too, especially for the young housewife who is relatively inexperienced when it comes to dealing with the wiles of shopkeepers, salesmen, insurance agents, estate agents, etc.

It is with regret that I have to say, however, that the majority of persons in my constituency, i.e. the White people who elected me to Parliament, are not quite as inexperienced as all that. They are the elderly, retired pensioners on fixed incomes, and they are not naïve. At any rate, they do not have the extra money to spend on sets of encyclopaedias, colour television sets, new motor-cars, Persian rugs, genuine oil paintings or antique furniture. They have to make every penny count without the help of shopping lists. They are unhappy about many things which apparently neither the Consumer Council nor the Government is concerned about. As an example I want to quote a letter from one of my constituents. I presume it is a gentleman who wrote the following—

I presume this was a football club and not a bowls club. My informant goes on to say—

He is concerned about the profits which make money available for this costly process and ends up by stating—

That is the kind of letter I receive. One cannot but agree with the writer of this letter, but what has the hon. the Minister to say about this? Literally millions of rands are being spent on all kinds of sponsorship, for example the sponsorship of soccer teams, motor racing teams, horse racing teams, golf, tennis, bowls, speed boating, yachting—you name it—and probably also on tiddly-winks tournaments. These activities are all being sponsored in the name of sport.

Why all this generosity? Is it because of the tax rebates they get on advertising or is it because these costs have been added to the price of the end product? People are getting more and more upset by sponsored television and radio programmes where huge prizes are given away. The advertisers have to incur very high costs in order to make use of these very expensive media but, notwithstanding that, they offer trips to Hong Kong, television sets and motorcars as prizes. People want to know why the costs of these expensive advertisements and prizes cannot be knocked off the price of the product so that all consumers can benefit equally. Take our newspapers. Every day they contain four, five or six full-page advertisements. These advertisements are published by the very firms who profess that they are giving their products away at cost. I wonder who pays for these advertisements. Is it the Receiver of Revenue or the consumer? Of course, I ought not to suggest that radio or television advertisements be cut, because this will offend the SABC; how will they exist without the revenue from advertisements? The same goes for the newspapers. How will they exist and support us as well as they do? By the same token we dutifully sit through tedious advertising programmes in cinemas not appreciating that we are paying three ways: We are paying for the advertisement, we are paying to watch it and we are paying extra on the end product. How about the Consumer Council turning its attention not only to unfair and improper advertising, but also to the effect excessive advertising is having on consumer prices?

Then there is the question of packaging. There are few countries in the world in which there is found a larger variety of packages for the same product than in South Africa. There are, for example, more than 2 000 types of envelopes being used in South Africa—they vary from size to size and from type to type. It is said that it takes a skilled man two days to change an envelope machine from one size to another, and if that is not a waste of money, I wonder what is.

I agree with you.

Yes, the hon. the Minister agrees and I know that the Post Office is trying to do something about standardizing envelopes, but the only one who can do something is the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

Steps are being taken at the moment.

The Bureau of Standards is trying to standardize packages and to get manufacturers to adopt these standard packages, but manufacturers do not want to co-operate. It is ridiculous that there are 20 or 30 sizes or types of packages for products marketed in 250 gram quantities. I refer to tins in which jam or canned fruit are packed. Why should there be 20 or 30 sizes for that same tip? The manufacturers are not co-operating because, if one manufacturer’s 250 gram tin is bigger than that of his competitor, his competitor immediately introduces an even bigger one. What is the object? Is it to fool the consumer that he is getting more since a bigger tin is used? The real effect, however, is that the price is pushed up. We have been told by one salt manufacturer that he is willing to guarantee that the price of his product will not change during the next five years if the Government is prepared to standardize all packaging for salt so that the packaging will not change during the next five years. It has been said by a member of the Bureau of Standards that the increase in costs due to the increase in the number of packages for products over the last 25 years exceeds the increase in the cost of the products themselves. However, it is no use standardizing locally if imports are not standardized as well. It should not be difficult to standardize imports because many overseas countries are already standardizing packaging. If we were to limit our imports in such a way that we only import from the countries that use standard packaging, then we ourselves will also be able to standardize the packaging of local goods.

When one speaks about packaging, one thinks of cooldrink cans and beer cans. If ever there was a waste of money, this is it. Apart from wasting precious metal to manufacture such cans, there is cost involved in collecting the empty tins and then, of course, there is the question of pollution—this blight on the countryside. The Consumer Council can profitably direct its attention to the use of glass containers and the system whereby deposits are repaid on the return of such containers. It is reliably said that in 1974 it cost R11 million in the Transvaal alone to collect empty beer cans and tins and garbage from public places. It is recommended that this be immediately stopped by substituting glass bottles on the system whereby deposits are repaid on the return of the bottles. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.