Mr. Chairman, the debate during Second Reading was one between those on the Government side who believe that the police need wider powers to stop and search cars and hon. members on this side of the House, who hold the view that the existing powers which the police have are sufficient. This problem and debate between those who want the police to have more powers and those who believe that police already have sufficient powers is not a debate which is unique to South Africa. It is a debate which goes on in many other countries in the world. The best comparison for us in these circumstances would be perhaps the situation in the United Kingdom, where there is also a debate between those who believe that the police need more power in order to do their job properly, in order to catch and detect people who commit crimes, and, on the other hand, those who believe that it will not be in the interests of society as a whole if the police were given more powers.

How did the United Kingdom approach this problem, Mr. Chairman?

We are in South Africa now.

It did so by appointing a commission in 1978. That was the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, which was set up in 1978, and which finally reported in 1981. In July 1981 its recommendations were submitted to the government. They dealt inter alia, also with the problems which the police were experiencing in connection with powers to stop and search cars. Why? Because in the United Kingdom it appears that the police had problems very similar to the ones the hon. the Minister thinks he is experiencing here. It was found, for example, in the United Kingdom that the police had not the legal right to set up roadblocks after a serious crime. They commonly did so, nevertheless.

Further it was noted that during the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper, for example, roadblocks were found to be established in certain districts night after night for months on end without the police actually having the legal power to do so. At the same time, however, they were never challenged. The question therefore is: How does one approach this problem? Does one approach it by giving the police carte blanche, or does one approach it in a more sensible way by regulating the powers which the police have in such circumstances? The debate is not about whether one is in favour of or against terrorists. It is not about whether one is soft on defence or strong on defence. It is a far more difficult debate.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to refer briefly to only one paragraph in the publication called Political Quarterly, which sets out the problems which one has in this debate. I quote from page 129 of the said publication, as follows—

The position in the United Kingdom is that the police do not have these powers which the hon. the Minister now asks for. They have powers in terms of specific acts to stop vehicles and search them for drugs or for fire-arms. What did this commission of inquiry recommend? It recommended that the police ought to be given clearer powers, that all the many acts which provide for this power should be consolidated into one specific act, which will give them the power to stop vehicles. I want to refer briefly to the powers which they received in this instance. I quote again from page 140 of the same publication, as follows—

The one deals with stolen property. I will not deal with that now. That falls into an entirely different category. I quote again—

This is particularly aimed at fire-arms. Reasonable suspicion is still required, however.

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment which appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Pinetown, as follows—

1. (i) an article concerned in an offence;
2. (ii) an article which affords evidence of an offence; or
3. (iii) an article which is intended to be used in an offence,

I move this amendment because it also lays down the requirement of reasonable grounds as contained in the proposed procedure which emanated from the Royal Commission of Inquiry in the United Kingdom. They also want to catch and prosecute people who carry fire-arms and explosives; in other words, people who are terrorists. In the United Kingdom they have a problem as well with the IRA. They propose this solution. I cannot see why we should not follow a similar line of conduct while still adhering to the principle of reasonable grounds. I submit that by doing so we are keeping ourselves within a legal framework without giving the police carte blanche, something which at this stage is not necessary.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Durban Central why the official Opposition have changed their attitude between 1977 and today on this particular issue?

Mr. Chairman, I was not here in 1977 I only came here later. [Interjections.] However, the question of these blanket powers throughout the country is to my mind certainly not something to which the Opposition would have agreed in 1977. It is only what the hon. the Minister wants now. We are not talking about a distance of 10 km; we are talking about the position throughout the country. There is no suggestion that the new powers for which the hon. the Minister is asking will result in a more effective crime detection rate and a more effective rate of apprehension. I submit that with the amendment I have moved, the police will still have the necessary powers whilst the public will have the assurance that the courts are still in control.

Mr. Chairman, the entire argument of the hon. member for Durban Central and his party is obviously not based on any aspect of logic. The hon. member cannot in any way explain why, as far as the principle of this Act is concerned, they have adopted a different standpoint to the one which they adopted in 1977. What those hon. members apparently cannot understand is that the principle simply provides that within 10 km of any border a police officer has the right to search a vehicle. That right to undertake a search is now being extended beyond that distance of 10 km. With all due respect I want to suggest that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central will be of no assistance to them. They will have to amend section 6(4)(a) of the present Police Act in its entirety. Including the principle that has already been in existence since 1977 and that was accepted by that side of the House with acclamation. I do not know what is going on with those hon. members. Yesterday the hon. the Minster showed them repeatedly that if there were to be an explosion near Cape Town and road blocks were to be erected and every vehicle were to be stopped, the police officers manning those road blocks could not have a reasonable suspicion that there is a bomb in every one of those vehicles or that every one of those vehicles is conveying a criminal or whatever the position may be. A reasonable suspicion can therefore not apply in this case. It seems to me as if those hon. members are too shortsighted or too thick-headed to understand this.

I feel that the present legislation as introduced by the hon. the Minister will cover the position in all regards and I therefore also support this stage of the Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the arguments of the hon. member for Durban Central, I can only assume that the official Opposition are attempting to justify their action and their stand. However, the effort that I heard this afternoon was a pathetic one. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I am permitted by the rules of this House to address myself to the general subject matter of the Bill.

You do not understand it.

I understand it very well. There is another thing that I understand and that is that the PFP is making a pathetic attempt to cover up the fact that it has a stigma that will stay with it for the rest of its days, namely, that it is soft on security. [Interjections.] It has no understanding of what security means. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Central has just risen and suggested that we play parlour games in this country. He has suggested that we should play games whereby people can cross our borders in motor vehicles carrying fire-arms and that as long as they get through the first 10 km without being stopped by a policeman it is simply a case of: “Move to Go; do not go to goal”, or whatever game applies. [Interjections.] Once they have managed to get past the first 10 km then it is a case of: Well done chaps! Now you can do as you like. You can wreak havoc in South Africa. That is the attitude of this little group of leftist liberals who quite honestly have no understanding of what we are dealing with. [Interjections.] The police are not being given more powers. The police are merely having existing powers extended beyond the 10 km limit.

What is the difference between an extension and giving more?

It is an extension of existing powers. It is not giving more power; it is not giving greater power because the power is there within the first 10 km. The hon. members in those benches have no argument against it because their spokesman said yesterday that he had no argument against that aspect. Now, however, the hon. member for Durban Central wants to argue against it. This is the most senseless debating I have ever heard in my life. I have come to expect it of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. With his limited common sense and the limitation of his little brain, I do not think we can expect anything more.

Brian, if your brain explodes it will not even push your glasses off your nose. [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon. member’s leader pulled that joke on me some years ago and he got a better laugh then. [Interjections.]

The amendment moved by the official Opposition calls for the insertion of the words which will have the effect that the police must have—

1. (i) an article concerned in an offence;
2. (ii) an article which affords evidence of an offence; or
3. (iii) an article which is intended to be used in an offence, is in or on any vehicle.

I ask in all reasonableness how is a policeman supposed to ascertain these reasonable grounds? What is it that he must possess? What superpowers must this policeman possess?

X-ray eyes.

Yes, perhaps X-ray eyes, but I do not know what other powers must he be in possession of to give him reasonable grounds to suspect that a vehicle has either dagga or arms or whatever in it? It is just physically impossible for the policeman to know this. Obviously he has to stop the vehicle and obviously he must request that the vehicle be opened for his inspection. We are given to understand by the PFP, however, that there is some general impingement on civil liberties or on the rights of the individual.

I have frequently been stopped at roadblocks in my constituency.

That is understandable, yes. [Interjections.]

The main road comes right down from the Swaziland border through my constituency and through Durban to Southern Natal. On the occasions that I had been stopped I have experienced nothing but extreme courtesy from the police who stopped me. I was asked politely to open my vehicle and its boot. I am happy to say, because I have never had anything to hide, that I have always been happy to do so and they have never found anything in my car. My hon. leader recently attended a function in Port Shepstone where our party honoured a man who I think was well loved in this House, Mr. Douglas Mitchell, and when the members of the party returned to their homes in Durban, every single one of them was stopped at a roadblock. Every member of the party has commented on the fact that they were treated with courtesy.

Why do we always have to have the suspicion that the police would act like a bunch of thugs? I believe that we must assist them in every way possible to protect our fellow South Africans, not just White South Africans, but all citizens of South Africa. We are living in extremely difficult times. People throughout the world have this problem. I agree it is an absolute power, but it is a reasonable power. I want to assure the hon. member for Durban Central that had this been sought in respect of an individual—in other words if they wanted the ability to search an individual—we in this party would oppose that.

That will be the next step.

I want to tell my hon. friend there that he should not always assume the worst. Let us deal with this step, in heaven’s name, and when we get to the next step, let us deal with the next step. What we are dealing with at the moment is the fact that we are living in extremely dangerous times and we have to do everything in our power to prevent terrorism, to stop the sort of arms smuggling into South Africa that is taking place. I am surprised at the hon. gentleman who made that interjection. He is the leader of that party in Natal, and he should know that there are probably more arms caches in Natal than in any other province in South Africa at the moment. I am therefore amazed that he talks the way he does. [Interjections.] I am pleased to see the hon. member for Yeoville here this afternoon. I do wish he would give us his opinion of this piece of legislation, I really do. I certainly would like the benefit of that hon. gentleman’s wisdom in this matter, because I think that he would sing a different kind of song from that sung by the rest of the members of his party.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga has just referred to the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville is in the House today. Yesterday—presumably for a good reason—he could not be here. However, if he had been here yesterday, he would have been ashamed of his political associates. He would have been ashamed of the standpoint they adopted on a security matter in this House. [Interjections.] Yesterday the official Opposition admitted that the existing Act gives the S.A. Police the absolute right to search any vehicle within 10 km of our country’s borders.

You do not understand the difference.

They have the absolute right to search a vehicle within 10 km of the country’s borders, without a warrant and without reasonable grounds. However, now that we are requesting the right to lift that 10 km qualification so that this measure can apply to the whole of South Africa, we are being fought tooth and nail. I am sure the hon. member for Yeoville does not agree with that standpoint. That is why I am glad he is here today so that he can see what goes on behind his back when he is not here. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman…

No, give me a chance now. This debate is not as simple as the hon. member for Durban Central wants to make out. Surely the question is not merely: Are you for or against terrorism? That is not what is at issue. Yesterday afternoon I asked the official Opposition explicitly: Are you prepared to give the S.A. Police the absolute right to erect roadblocks in order to combat terrorism, because they can search any vehicle at that roadblock irrespective of whether there are reasonable grounds or not—the same right they have within 10 km of our country’s borders. There was no reply. [Interjections.] Not even the hon. Chief Whip had the courage of his convictions to rise and speak on behalf of his party because the Leader of the official Opposition was not here. That is what is at issue. The hon. member for Umhlanga is quite right. Most of those hon. members sitting there are not able to rise and take a strong stand against terrorism in South Africa. That applies to must of them sitting there. They are not able to do that. [Interjections.] They are not prepared to open their mouths. The hon. member for Green Point, for example, is not prepared to open his mouth. [Interjections.] Those hon. members are asking me to accept this amendment. In the Third Reading debate we can discuss the principle again, but I should like to repeat the question the hon. member for Roodepoort asked. Why is there this change now in the party’s approach to this specific principle? In 1979 the hon. member for Houghton—who is surely still the most senior member of that party— had no objection to it, and as I know her, she still has no objection to that principle. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central did not have any objection to the principle in 1979 either, and I am satisfied that he still has no objection to it in principle.

Mr. Chairman …

No, wait a minute. [Interjections.] Today he does not have any objection to it in principle either. That is why I am asking the other hon. members sitting there: Why this change? They can spell it out for us in the Third Reading debate if they like. [Interjections.] The hon. member has asked me to accept his amendment which will provide that the Police will only be entitled to search a vehicle on reasonable grounds. But how will the hon. member determine the norms for his reasonable grounds? What if—–for example after the recent explosion—there had been roadblocks on all the main roads around Bloemfontein, and the Police stopped about 1 000 vehicles an hour on those busy roads? We are entitled to do that. However, now the hon. member has told us that, although we may erect the roadblocks, we may not stop a person and search his vehicle unless we have reasonable grounds for suspecting that he is in possession of illegal weapons or ammunition. He quoted the British authority in this connection. He said that unless we have reasonable grounds to suspect that he is in possession of weapons, dagga or any other illegal object, we may not stop that vehicle. The hon. member must now tell me how the Police around Bloemfontein were to have determined these reasonable grounds. Surely this is absolutely impossible in practice. It is ridiculous to argue like this. That is another reason why I am not prepared to accept this amendment of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister continues with the same type of argument. He says that in 1979 we agreed to the principle of unlimited powers to search the individual, the car and the house within 10 kilometers of the border, and that now, in 1983, all he is doing is extending the power to search the car to the country as a whole. What right, he then asks, do we have to oppose that, having agreed to the principle in 1979. I want to ask him whether, if that will remain his attitude, as it must, he will come to us next year and say: “You agreed to the power to search the house, the car and the individual in the area up to 10 kilometers from the border; now we want to extend that to give the police unlimited power to search the individual and the house in the country as a whole …”

Do not exaggerate.

I am not exaggerating. The Minister will then ask: “What right do you have to oppose that? The principle is the same.” Sir, that is a pathetic argument. What is happening here is that this power is being extended from the border area, which we know is always a sensitive area for infiltration by terrorists with explosives and weapons, to the whole of the country. Having those powers in the border area differs completely from having them in the centre of Cape Town. Therefore that argument does not wash.

I persist with my amendment because it has been found that the requirement of “reasonable grounds” still enables the police to set up roadblocks if a bomb should explode in Bloemfontein or Cape Town. Let me refer again to the example of the Bloemfontein bomb. If a bomb explodes, the police will immediately suspect that it was planted by an ANC terrorist who came from Lesotho and that he will try to get out of Bloemfontein. If they then set up a roadblock, they will be acting within the powers which are given to them if this amendment is accepted, because there will be reasonable suspicion that one of the cars leaving Bloemfontein will contain ammunition or something connected with the offence. That would therefore be completely covered by the amendment. For that reason other roadblocks and the stopping of other cars will be covered as well.

Mr. Chairman, the longer I listen to the hon. member, the more I thank my lucky stars that he is not my attorney or advocate in a court of law. I want to tell him I respect the authority he quoted with regard to the British position and the recommendations of the commission. Let it apply in the United Kingdom.

They have the same problem.

Let that meet their requirements. Let them also have the same problem. However, we have our own conditions in South Africa and we shall find our own solutions to the problem under South African conditions. In South Africa we are not prepared to adopt some of the solutions found in the United Kingdom for their problem. We are not prepared to send unarmed policemen into riot situations. We are not prepared to send policemen into riot situations without proper protection so that they can be badly injured by stones. We consider it unnecessary that in riot situations it should be policemen rather than anyone else who get hurt. There are many differences. We in South Africa intend and are prepared to enable the police force to act effectively and not to be a bunch of bunglers like those we saw in the streets of London. That is why I say that this amending Bill is before this House to enable the S. A. Police to act effectively without the millstone around their necks of having to have reasonable grounds in the expanses of South Africa. It does not matter how they are to determine those reasonable grounds, as long as we can raise these clever arguments here in this House. For this reason I am afraid that I am not prepared nor am I able, to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening I was referring to the speech of the hon. member for Albany. That was after I had tried to sketch the background against which we must assess this Bill. I was trying to explain that that hon. member who is also from the Eastern Cape and who has special capabilities and who, we assume, is acquainted with the Ciskeian people, their habits, customs, culture and national consciousness and their national aspirations and achievements, could have made an exceptional contribution on this occasion. After all, it goes without saying that the legal acts that will stem from this Bill will mean a great deal to the people of Ciskei.

But what did we find? The hon. member for Albany merely followed the tirade made by the hon. member for Berea and he discussed so-called injustices that are supposed to have taken place or may take place in the future as far as the Coloureds of Stockenström are concerned, although the entire matter of the Coloureds of that area is in a process of negotiation. The hon. the Deputy Minister will refer to this in a moment. What I cannot understand is that the hon. member eventually came to the unreasonable conclusion “that we are building up a legacy of hate … for which our children will pay dearly”. Surely it is unreasonable, while this entire matter is in the process of being negotiated, to place what almost amounts to a curse of excommunication on us. I shall tell hon. members what caused this phenomenon. The hon. member is keeping nationally harmful political company and he has been totally misled by a senior member of his party, the hon. member for Berea. After all, the hon. member for Berea has never given any attention to or had any appreciation for the aspirations of a people that really want to be free. I want to prove this.

The hon. member for Berea, who was the main speaker for the PFP in this debate, said that his party would not support the Second Reading of this Bill. He gave various reasons and I want to refer to only a few of them. He said, for example, that they could not support it because the principles contained in it also affected the principles in those measures that granted independence to the various Black States. One can perhaps still understand this coming from the PFP. However, he then advanced this important reason, namely that there would be so-called fragmentation of South Africa if the legal acts which would stem from this legislation were to take place. I cannot understand that argument of the hon. member. It was on 4 February 1980 that the principal Act, which is to be amended today, was before this House and was unanimously accepted by all the parties. The then main speaker of the PFP, the hon. member for Houghton, had the following to say (Hansard, 11 February 1980, col. 466)—

And here she is referring to the principal Act of 1980—

Those states were not yet independent then. She went on to say on behalf of the PFP—

Is the so-called fragmentation of 1980 no longer fragmentation in 1982? Or is it fragmentation in 1982, but not in 1980? Could the undertakings which were given in 1936 not also have led to this so-called fragmentation? Or did the PFP, as far as this is concerned, totally reject the decision of their spiritual mother and adopt an entirely new course? However, that is not all. The hon. member for Berea went on to say that he could not support this legislation and he made a number of statements which were not only hurtful to hon. members on this side of the House, but were also hurtful to the nations of the independence States. He referred to “satellite States” when he meant the independent Black States.

If the USA lends Brazil R200 million in its hour of need, does Brazil become a satellite State of the United States overnight? And what is more, in the context of Africa, surely that is a hurtful description of an independent State in Southern Africa. It is surely extremely hurtful.

Let us consider what progress these independent States have already made. During this debate the hon. member for Vryheid referred to the tremendous progress that has been made in Bophuthatswana, for example. As the proposed schedule 4 of clause 3 of this Bill is devoted to Ciskei land, it is surely reasonable for me, as a person from the Eastern Cape, to refer to the Ciskei. And what do we find? We find that there are no fewer than 35 other independent States in Africa with a lower per capita income than that of the Ciskei. We also find, measured against the ordinary normal standards of education, that there are few if any other States north of the Limpopo that can compete with the educational standards and facilities that already apply in the Ciskei. Let us consider what is happening in the field of agriculture. We are tremendously struck by the emphasis the Ciskeian Government has placed on the productive utilization of land they have received from the Republic. If we look at their irrigation schemes what do we find?

We find that the settlement of small farmers at, for example, Keiskammahoek, is one of the most attractive and one of the best in Africa. As a matter of fact there are people who claim that it is unique in the world. If we consider the horticulture plots of 5 ha each, they are also a unique attempt to implement actual community development. Just consider the establishment of infrastructure, the dam projects and road projects planned and undertaken and the establishment of infrastructure as far as telecommunication services are concerned. Here we have a young State which is building and progressing in its own right. If one visits the old, historic Fort Cox in the Ciskei, one finds there a wonderful agricultural college which offers various fields of study. When one gets to the main building one finds there the motto non sibi sed populo which, freely translated, means: Not for myself but for my people.

One wonders Mr. Speaker, whether it would be wrong of me to ask members of the official Opposition when they make statements about independent Black States which have arisen out of the RSA, to bear this motto in mind. If they do this perhaps they would also be able to contribute something to sound race relations here at the southernmost point of Africa.

Sir, it is a great privilege for me to support this measure, and I do so for three reasons in particular. I feel I am correct in saying that this measures reafirms the intention of the Government to give impetus to the transfer of land from the jurisdiction of the RSA to the independent Black States. In the second place it is quite clear to me that this is just another positive step in the entire consolidation process of the Government, and in the third place, this represents the reaffirmation by the Government of its intention of keeping the promises made by the Whites to the Black nations.

Mr. Speaker, initially when the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced the Bill, he dealt very briefly with the reasons as to why specific areas have to be incorporated into these three independent Black States. The hon. member for Newton Park dealt chiefly with the position in the Eastern Cape, and as far as that is concerned, I am not going to follow up on what he said. I want to confine myself more particularly to the position in respect of Venda. This is dealt with in Clause 2 of the Bill. In motivating the transfer of this area to Venda the hon. the Deputy Minister said (Hansard, 8 February, col. 579)—

No other motivation was given, except that this had been agreed to during “recent negotiations”, and this was done in regard to an area which had been the subject of a proper investigation in the past, the findings of which were that the area should become White since it was badly situated and remote from Venda. Compensatory land in exchange for that area had been purchased by the State, land contiguous to Venda. But now, all of a sudden, we are told—as motivation for this area to be returned to Venda, in consequence of which it will not become a White area—that we concluded an agreement with Venda. No further motivation is given.

If ever there were an area one could call badly situated in a White area, it is this one. I want to contend that up to now not a single sound reason has been furnished in this House as to why this area should form part of Venda, and why it should not become a White area.

Actually this entire affair has become a very interesting story. The Commission for Co-operation and Development, I presume, conducted a proper investigation into this matter. In the past it was announced—and it is common knowledge—that a certain procedure had to be followed in all cases of consolidation. This procedure was that the Commission for Co-operation and Development conducted proper investigation, submitted a report to the Cabinet, that the Cabinet considered the report, that the commission was then afforded the opportunity to consult with all interested parties who might be affected by the proposed consolidation, and that those interested parties would be afforded the opportunity to testify before the commission or to put their point of view in connection with the matter to the commission. However, what happened in this specific case? I take it that the Commission for Co-operation and Development did in fact conduct investigation into the possible final consolidation of Venda. I take it that the commission did in fact submit its report to the Cabinet. But what happened then? On 7 July 1982 the local member of Parliament, the hon. the Minister of Manpower announced the final borders of Venda at a special Press conference convened by him, and this was reported under banner headlines in the Press. The Press reported that the borders of Venda had been drawn finally. So there is no longer any doubt; the borders of Venda are final now.

Fanie the big game hunter.

However, the hon. the Minister of Manpower went further. At this Press conference he said that when Venda became independent in 1979, certain proposals concerning excisions from and additions to the territory of Venda remained to be finalized, proposals to which both Governments would give attention before it would be possible to determine final borders. The hon. the Minister of Manpower went on to say that the Department of Foreign Affairs had completed the final negotiations concerning the borders between the two countries. He also added that the Department of Co-operation and Development had completed the final phase in the process of consolidation under the guidance of the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, Mr. Greyling Wentzel, now the hon. the Minister of Agriculture.

The hon. the Minister went even further, however, and said the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information had added that all investigations and negotiations had been fully disposed of.

Did he not add that it was history?

Oh yes! He said history had been made. He said the consolidation of Venda was final, and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information had concluded final agreements with Venda. The hon. the Minister of Manpower then made the historic announcement that everything had been finalized. [Interjections.]

What happened next? The very next day the Government of Venda issued a statement expressing their astonishment. They were quite astonished because they knew of no final arrangements. I do not wish to waste the time of this House, but I do want to point out something else. The Government of Venda said the following—

Now, all of us are in favour of clean and orderly government. A senior Minister of this Government called a special Press conference in his constituency—and which, I hear, he is experiencing some problems—and announced: This matter had been finalized. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information had finalized talks with Venda and had concluded the final agreement. The next day, however, the Government of Venda said: We are surprised. We have no knowledge of this. But that is not the end of the story. The present hon. Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, who was the chairman of the Commission at the time, in turn called a Press conference on 19 July last year. The heading of this Press report reads as follows—

The then Mr. Hennie van der Walt said the following—

He was referring to Venda. Mr. Van der Walt said—

Now we come to the interesting part. Mr. Van der Walt, the chairman of the Commission, went on to say—

This happened on 19 July but prior to that, on 7 July, the hon. the Minister of Manpower took up position in front of a map and announced everything to the Press. Now, both these things cannot be true. One is simply astonished at the Minister of Manpower, a senior Minister making a final announcement without the chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development knowing that his work had been completed. He was still working, because he went on to say in his Press statement—

From our side a question was placed on the Question Paper.

That date is incorrect.

Yes, I have already said it was 7 July. I have already said the announcement was made by the hon. the Minister on 7 July, but this reply said it was made on 30 June.

It is unfortunate. The 7th is correct.

Yes, I know. In our question we asked the Government, inter alia,—

We received the following reply—

Now we want to hear from the Government, and parties interested in Venda are not the only ones who want to hear from the Government, but all people all over South Africa who may possibly be affected by consolidation want to hear from the Government. For many years now, not by means of legislation, but by means of promises, people, but particularly the farmers of South Africa, have been told: You will be consulted every time your interests are involved. One’s interests are involved not only when one’s farm, one’s personal farm, will possibly be incorporated into a foreign State, but also when one’s neighbour’s farm may possibly be incorporated. In that case, too, one has an interest.

We have constantly been promised that interested parties will be consulted in such cases.

In the case of Venda, however, we received the arrogant reply that the Commission for Co-operation and Development had not been able to talk to interested parties because the Cabinet had taken a decision. Where could one find something more arrogant than this? I want to know whether this is the pattern which is going to be followed in future. Is this the pattern? In the past the Government told our farmers that they would be consulted in every case, but are we to accept now, because of our experience with Venda, that those promises are absolutely worthless? Are we to accept that a promise from the Government is worthless? We should like to have a reply to this question, because in this case we were blatantly told that because the Cabinet had taken a decision, it was no longer necessary to consult any interested party.

We have a suspicion as to what the reason is for this particular pattern having been followed in this particular case. It is that the particular hon. the Minister who was the MP for that area and who no longer is the MP for that area and is not going to become its MP again either … [Interjections.] … experienced exceptional problems with his voters in that area. It is as The Citizen said. After the Press interview held by the hon. the Deputy Minister on 19 July, The Citizen said—

We have more than a mere suspicion that the hon. the Minister of Manpower, because he was experiencing personal problems in his constituency, exerted pressure to have a departure in this case from the normal procedure in respect of consolidation and its finalization. I challenge anyone on the opposite side to deny this fact—I say it is a fact— otherwise sound reasons for this must be advanced to us.

The Deputy Minister was the chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development at that time. I ask him why the normal procedure was not followed in this case.

What is more—and I want to conclude my speech with this: No sound reasons have been advanced up to now as to why the relevant area of Senthimula and Kutama will no longer become White. We have no knowledge of anyone having asked that it should not become White, except—I said this in a previous debate—that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development does not have the courage to face the consequences of his own policy when it comes to the removal of Black people. There are only 30 000 Black people living in that entire area. The Black people who used to be there, people who have no links with Venda but with Lebowa, were removed. Why were the others not removed? Why could the others not be removed? After all, the compensatory land had been purchased. This brings me to a further question. Is this what we are going to experience on the road ahead, during the term of office of this hon. Minister? [Interjections.] This makes me think of poorly situated areas in my part of the world. [Interjections.] It also makes me think of Amersfoort in the constituency of the hon. member for Ermelo. It also makes me think of a place such as Daggakraal. For how long have we been awaiting the removal of that poorly situated area? We are beginning to suspect that that area, too, is not going to be removed, because a large power-station is to be constructed in that area. Our information is that it will most probably become a Black residential area. Therefore, the reverse process is in progress in South Africa. Instead of White South Africa becoming more White geographically, too, the reverse is happening. Whites are making the sacrifice of making land available for consolidation, but if a quid pro quo is called for, absolutely nothing happens, as is now evidenced by the experience in Mayfair in Johannesburg as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Barberton should rather leave Mayfair in Johannesburg to us. We shall solve that problem ourselves. Perhaps he should tell the hon. member for Langlaagte what the Railway workers said:

“We are waiting for you in Langlaagte.” [Interjections.] The hon. member for Barberton really surprises one. One has great respect for the hon. member. He is an eloquent hon. member, but he is one of the hon. members in this House who served for years on the Commission for Co-operation and Development.

No, only for three months.

For quite a long time. [Interjections.] He should therefore know what problems that commission experienced. It is therefore not fair to make this blatant accusation that in the future this Government is going to act in a bureaucratic way as far as consolidation is concerned. The hon. member has no real facts to justify such a statement.

Well, what was the problem in this case?

The problem with those hon. members is that over the years they have built up a personal hatred for certain people. [Interjections.] The speech that hon. member made here this afternoon was a typical political platform speech of the kind he would like to make in Soutpansberg. However, those hon. members must be careful. If they are not careful they will all return from Soutpansberg with “foot-and-mouth disease”. [Interjections.] As for the problems involving Kutama and Senthumula, which are in Venda, I am sure the hon. the Minister will be able to deal with that hon. member quite satisfactorily. However, it is outrageous for that hon. member to come here and talk about a departure. After all that is the last party that should talk about departures. They are denying everything they stood for as far back as 1977 and even before that. [Interjections.] The trouble with the CP is that those people do not want to take responsibility for the decisions they helped to make in South Africa. The hon. member for Pietersburg in particular expressed strong criticism in his speech in this debate because Lebowa lies scattered into 10 different areas and those areas are not being consolidated. However, I want to put a question to those hon. members. Perhaps the hon. member for Lichtenburg could reply to this. Are they going to use their chequerboard policy for the Coloured homeland in such a way that there will be total consolidation for the Coloureds in South Africa? They must tell us this.

Where one can do this, one must do so.

What is their basic philosophy? There basic premise is the claiming of the sole say on a sectional basis. If they were to come into power in South Africa, would they continue to negotiate on consolidation? Or would they simply take certain decisions?

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member agree that when Venda became independent, an agreement was already reached with the Government of Venda that that area would become a White area?

That hon. member was a member of the Cabinet at that stage. After all, this is not the first time that such a situation has arisen with regard to consolidation. I am convinced that while the hon. member was serving on the Cabinet there were similar problems. However, I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with this matter quite adequately.

One cannot however conduct a debate with those hon. members because they are so emotionally burdened with hatred that one cannot argue rationally with them. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member must wait. I shall get round to him as well.

I now come to the hon. member for Berea. He is not here at the moment. The hon. members of the official Opposition yet again levelled the accusation that the entire process of consolidation was linked to our ideological considerations. But of course! Nobody is denying the fact that the basic consideration of Government policy is based on its ideology and philosophy of separate national States for Blacks. After all the Government is implementing its national policy in South Africa, but that is not the whole story. The geographic consolidation and the arrangement of borders is of course a priority to give each of the Black national States meaningful content with regard to their political future here in the southern part of Africa. Furthermore this programme of consolidation of which this measure contains only a few aspects, is the result of many years of intensive negotiations. It is the fulfilment of certain promises dating back many years. It is also the realization of an ideal this Government set itself.

I want to get back to the hon. member for Berea—I am glad he has returned to the House. I want to ask him where the PFP stands with regard to consolidation. After all, their policy is also a policy of geographic separation. They tell us that if they come into power they will set up new boundaries to create these geographic federal units in South Africa. When they get around to this and they have to redraw and rearrange the boundaries in South Africa, this will also be the ideological realization of their policy. Now they will say, as they in fact argue, that they will draw boundaries based solely on economic considerations. However, what does one find in the PFP’s little blue book? Let us go back a little and see what Mr. Justice Kowie Marais, who is no longer here, said when he and the hon. member for Yeoville and others laid the foundation on which their party was established. Point 12 of Mr. Kowie Marais’s proposals read as follows—

What does this tell us? It tells us that basically they want to allow a political growth point, like any of the national States, to have the right to self-determination. If they want to exercise self-determination on an independent basis, one wonders what the standpoint of those people will be. In actual fact they are now recognizing the principle of self-determination for the Black national States. Surely this is a fact. Of course we know that the contents of these federal units will be multiracial. However, if such an area decides to adopt such a standpoint one wonders what they will do. If one takes this problem, with or without border adjustments, into account, it is clear that in implementing their policy they are going to have the same problems as we on this side of the House are experiencing.

I want to quote another excerpt from this blue book. Under the heading “The PFP stands for a federation with decentralization and separation of powers” one reads in paragraph 4.2—

In other words, they will have just as many problems as this party in determining the borders of the geographic areas.

On page 27 of the little blue book the basis which they will lay down when they decide on the new borders is set out. These are the basic guidelines they are going to give the national convention. It is put as follows—

Surely this is exactly what the Commission for Co-operation and Development did in this case. According to the little blue book the commission must also take the following into account—

This is also one of the requirements set. The commission must also bear in mind—

This example of Kutama and Senthimula about which the CP is kicking up such a fuss is a case of 30 000 people who are living near the town of Louis Trichardt and who will form part of a deconcentration point, a growth point in Soutpansberg. According to the little blue book the commission must also take into account—

and—

The arrangements in respect of Venda for example are in fact a case in which the requirements set by the PFP in their policy are met.

The hon. member for Berea seems to have forgotten what the consideration for the establishment of the original progressive Party in South Africa was. He must listen attentively now. What did the hon. member say, inter alia? He said (Hansard, 8 February 1983, col. 580)—

That is the hon. member’s standpoint. The PFP is therefore opposing this legislation because land is being given to Black States that are going to receive their independence from South Africa. After Dr. Verwoerd announced his policy for separate States in Southern Africa in this House in 1959, Mr. Douglas Mitchell—the hon. member for Umhlanga mentioned his name this afternoon—moved a motion at the next congress of the United Party, of which that hon. member was a member. How did that motion read? It contained exactly the same words as those used by the hon. member for Berea here. He said—

What happened then? The hon. member for Berea, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Sea Point left the party. However, now the hon. members are using the arguments that formed the basis of the establishment of their party in their opposition to this legislation. The PFP must take another look at the principles on which the party is established. I want to read out point No. 9 of Mr. Justice Kowie Marais’ document—

That is the standpoint of the PFP.

I should like to make one remark with regard to Kutama and Senthimula. I am acquainted with the Venda people and I know for a fact that this area is a sore point among them. According to the Vendas some of their forefathers are buried here and they would very much like to retain the land. That is their standpoint. The PFP says that they will take into consideration the “cultural heritages of the people” but then they give the Venda people a slap in the face by telling them that they must listen to the paternalistic standpoint of the PFP.

I think hon. members of the CP must also accept one thing. As delays occurred with regard to consolidation over the years infrastructures developed within these Black areas. In Senthimula schools were built and towns were developed. Surely these things cost money. Is it not therefore a practical consideration that one must take these things into account when it comes to final arrangements? I believe that this is a realistic measure and I think the hon. members of the PFP and the CP are trying to score a few cheap political points here, but it will get them nowhere.

That is why it gives me pleasure to support this measure.

I also think that it is appropriate on this occasion to point out that all the hon. members on the Government side who participated in this debate, were all members of the Commission for Co-operation and Development. We on this side of the House want to place on record our thanks and gratitude for their hard work and their conscientiousness, for their time and their sacrifices in leaving their families alone at home for long periods in order to finalize this question of consolidation. I think it is a pity that the chairman of this commission is not here today. Then we could have thanked him personally.

I want to conclude by saying that everything involving the consolidation this Government is engaged on, is aimed at creating order and giving meaningful content to the Government’s policy. That is why I think this House should not hesitate to thank and congratulate those hon. members in the first place and the hon. the Minister in the second place on this measure which will bring finality with regard to this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by responding to a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Turffontein. I am not really sure whether he is deliberately trying to distort what is in the little blue book of PFP policy or whether he is just incapable of understanding what is in it. First of all, he knows very well that this party has always been against consolidation. There has never been any speaker from this party who has supported consolidation. The federation we talk about is a geographical federation which is drawn up with administrative boundaries. It has nothing to do with enforced membership of different States, enforced membership of different ethnic groups or anything like that. The federation we look at involves no loss of South African citizenship. That is a cardinal point. It involves free movement of people between States if they want to. There is no enforced membership of a State. There is also no loss of South African citizenship.

Will you not redraw boundaries?

They are adminstrative boundaries, that is all. In addition to that, we will not unilaterally draw up the boundaries. The boundaries will be drawn up in consultation with the other groups and the people who are affected by it. [Interjections.] I shall come to the NRP in a minute because the NRP reaction to this Bill is very interesting.

Tell us about the boundaries of Natal.

I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. member must just be a little patient. This has been an interesting debate. I shall not reply directly to all the hon. members who have spoken, but I hope I shall be able to answer the various points that have been raised.

Firstly, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Ventersdorp. Unfortunately he is not here today. He says that we oppose this Bill because we do not want to give the Black people any more land. What a ridiculous statement! When will the hon. member understand that we regard Black people as citizens the same as anybody else in this country? They are no better or no worse, with the same rights as anybody else. We do not see the problems of our country being solved by dividing it up into little bits and pieces and handing these over to other groups to try to make them happy with their lot in the country. We look rather at the country as a single entity. We would rather attack the real problems of the country, e.g. lack of; jobs, housing, education, health and creating a just society. Handing over little bits of land solves absolutely nothing. I cannot think of one problem it solves, except some figment of the Government’s ideological imagination. Can hon. members tell me of one problem it solves? Does it create more jobs? Does it improve health facilities? I cannot think of one problem that it solves.

Another question that has been raised during this debate is the question of costs. Nobody has answered us yet, and I hope that somebody in the course of this debate will tell us what this latest bit of consolidation is going to cost. Let us then convert that cost into terms of schools, roads, hospitals and new jobs. This is ideological expenditure and as such a waste of money and inflationary. In addition it leads to all types of hardships, as has been pointed out by this side of the House, hardships for instance through people having to be moved.

But this is part of the 1936 quota …

Let me make the point that the people who drafted the 1936 Land Act had no concept, that this would be used as a basis for granting independence. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Pietersburg referred to problems farmers are experiencing in border areas. We too have sympathy with those farmers and their border problems, but I submit that border problems are never ever going to be solved as long as we have Whites occupying 84% of the land of the country. As long as the Government is making a political football of land we will never solve these border problems by consolidation. As long as one has a wealthy area next to a relatively poor area there are always going to be border problems, and this problem is not going to get better; it is going to get worse with the population build-up in the homelands and the pressure increases for people to leave those homelands. The hon. member for Vryheid and various other members spoke about the developments that were taking place in the national Black States, e.g. in Bophuthatswana, at Kieskammahoek in Ciskei, etc. I agree with them. These are impressive achievements. These hon. members also spoke of the benefits of deconcentration and decentralization. But we as the official Opposition have never been against deconcentration and decentralization as such. But what on earth has that got to do with consolidation? Why cannot we have growth in an area without consolidation? What has it got to do with independence? Nothing. Bophuthatswana can continue to export maize and produce more than they need. They do not have to be independent in order to do that. One does not need independence in order to decentralize. Independence has got nothing to do with it.

Another interesting aspect of this debate is the support the NRP gives to consolidation. If they are in favour of consolidating kwaZulu it follows that they do not regard Zulus as being South African citizens. These two things are mutually exclusive.

Why cannot a self-governing territory be consolidated?

You cannot be in favour of consolidation, and at the same time support the concept that they are full and equal citizens of our country. This is contradictory. I would suggest that members of the NRP get off the fence and make up their minds one way or the other.

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

No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, the argument of the PFP rests on four legs. In the first place we believe that we should depoliticize the land issue. Land is there to produce food and fibre for the nation and anybody should be allowed to farm it, to make use of it as long as they do so productively. Whites own 84% of the land and we shall never be able to consolidate in such a way as to keep Blacks satisfied. Let me ask this question: Is there a homeland leader today who is satisfied with what he has got? The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that Venda for instance is not happy with the land they have. In the Rand Daily Mail of today Chief Kaizer Matanzima is reported as having said that selfrule was a mistake. The article reads—

According to the newsletter Chief Kaizer Matanzima warmly praised Chief Buthelezi for not accepting independence. The article goes on—

The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that those leaders are not happy with what they have got. What is more, they are never going to be happy and the sooner we forget this ideological nonsense of trying to keep people happy with consolidation and further breaking up our country the better. We should rather settle the real problems we have.

The second leg of our argument—and the hon. the Deputy Minister himself stated this a couple of years ago—is that the transfer of land from one State to another adds absolutely nothing to the overall production potential of Southern Africa. In fact it actually reduces the production capacity of Southern Africa.

The third issue in regard to this Bill on which we take a stand is that the rights of Coloured people in the area have not been adequately protected.

The fourth factor is the environmental aspect. The Government’s policy of consolidation, and resettlement represents nothing more than a complete environmental disaster. I should like to elaborate on this. Let us bear in mind that there are some policies that can be reversed at a later stage if necessary. But what is happening here is that vast areas of land are being irreparably damaged. These areas are being overgrazed, their stocking capacity is four to five times what it should be and in addition to that all wood is being burned as fuel. This happens as a result of dense populations which have been resettled in these particular areas. It is obvious that resettlement is planned in respect of some of the land in question. Replies given by the Minister of Co-operation and Development in reply to questions last year …

What is your solution to the problems of overgrazing and overpopulation?

I will get to that just now. The hon. the Minister dealt with this in reply to question 618 et seq. last year. He then said that residents of Mooiplaas, Kwelera and Newlands settlements were going to be resettled in Kidds Beach/Chalumna area. Now we all know what will happen when people get resettled there. They get dumped there by their thousands with their stock and in no time at all we have a complete environmental disaster.

Speak the truth. [Interjections.]

Last year I accompanied the Deputy Minister of Environmental Affairs on a trip. One of the places we visited was the Drakenberg catchment area. I am sure that everybody on that tour could not help but be impressed by the work being done there in connection with environmental conservation by officials of the Department of Forestry. We saw a highly dedicated efficient team with the right attitude towards conservation. I should like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister something. Within 10 km from that same area, which is an example of what conservation should be all about, I could take people on a guided tour of a complete wasteland, which is the direct result of people being resettled there. Why is that different policies apply? We have a Bill coming up for discussion in the House soon, a Bill dealing with conservation.

To which area do you refer now?

I am referring to the Upper Tugela location, in the Drakensberg area.

You must be careful. You are going to get a hiding as never before. [Interjections.]

We have a Bill coming before this House soon dealing with conservation of agricultural resources. That Bill reveals a commendable attitude towards our agricultural resources and our willingness to conserve them. This applies of course to White agriculture. Why then must it be suddenly so different when that hon. Deputy Minister’s department begins to resettle people? Why should the land then be irreversibly damaged? Why should it be suddenly different when it comes to an issue of this nature? The amazing thing is that the Government is pursuing a policy which is self-defeating in the long run, because the more the land becomes denuded the less that land will be able in the long run to support the people and the more the pressure will grow to move away from that land back into the urban areas.

The hon. the Deputy Minister asks for a solution to the problem. This party has often offered a solution. Let us first of all accept that we have to opt for a rapid process of urbanization in South Africa, whether we like it or not. That is a simple fact. We should begin to plan now for this process to take place in as orderly and as rapid a fashion as possible so that we can get people off the land. Those left there will then at least have some chance to conserve it and to farm properly. There is however no planning at all. A case in point is this KTC camp at Nyanga. The people who are allowed to be here do not even have housing available. Nevertheless, they are allowed to be here. It is an absolute disgrace. [Interjections.]

I believe that no Government has the right irreparably to damage our natural resources, resources on which future generations are going to depend. I do not refer only to the Tugela Location. I also refer to Ciskei. The hon. member for Albany will readily arrange a tour of that area. We can then all go and have a look at what is really happening, instead of continuing to bluff ourselves. Much land to which I refer now is already irreparably damaged. That is the legacy that we are going to leave to future generations. I submit that we have to look after our land resources. By continuing to pursue the Government’s shortsighted policy we are damaging large areas of land forever. That is a fact. Whoever does not believe me can go and look for themselves. That is the one reason, Mr. Speaker, why we do not support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make certain facts available to hon. members very calmly and dispassionately, because, as far as I am concerned, they are totally ignorant regarding these matters. But having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I cannot help getting a little worked up. I refuse to be discourteous, however. I should like to begin by thanking hon. members who have congratulated me on the handling of my first legislation in this House. This does not apply to the hon. member for Berea, of course; he is too rude, and he did not congratulate me either.

To the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, and to other hon. members opposite—including hon. members of the CP—I want to say that these are sensitive matters which we are dealing with. [Interjections.] When we discuss these things in this House, hon. members should make sure of their facts. Now I want to inquire of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South when last he visited Kidds Beach and Chalumna.

Mr. Speaker, I got my information from the hon. member for Albany. [Interjections.]

Then the hon. member has never been there himself. [Interjections.] I may put it to the hon. member that I was there on Monday. Now the hon. member for Pietermartizburg South alleges that Kidds Beach and Chalumna are bursting at the seams because of the influx of people who have been moved by us from Mooiplaas, Kwalega and Newlands. That is absolute nonsense. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Albany does not know what he is talking about either. The facts are as follows. There are 802 families at Kidds Beach and Chalumna. Not a single one of them came from Newlands or Mooiplaas or Kwalega. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

No. We have just had a survey conducted because we are helping the Ciskei with its squatter problem which has arisen there. I shall tell hon. members what the situation is. 86% of those people have been squatting there since before Ciskei became independent. More than 80% of the people living on those two farms belong to the tribe of which President Sebe is the head. There are only 80 people in the area to which Chief Jonilanga’s people have to move. I shall tell hon. members where those people come from. Those people who are squatting in that area come from King William’s Town, the Stutterheim district, the Komga district, East London and some other places the names of which I cannot recall at the moment. I want to tell hon. members why. These are all people who were driven from those areas by the Whites because they had voted for the referendum. They voted for the referendum and then they had to get out. [Interjections.] These are not the only places where this is the position. There are also places such as Umgwali and Frankfort. We have the same story there. The hon. member for King William’s Town will be able to tell hon. members about it. He knows what the position is. Now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South comes along and he wants to tell me something about Kidds Beach and Chalumna. Good heavens, Mr. Speaker! I am getting sick and tired of such rubbish! [Interjections.] Coming from a man who does not even have first-hand knowledge of it! Those children living there have to walk up to 8 km a day to go to school. We have to take water to those people in tank trucks. We have just made R75 000 available for supplying fresh water to prevent cholera from spreading to that area. What is more, we have just entered into an agreement with the Ciskeian Government in terms of which those people will be removed because President Sebe does not want those people on that specific piece of land because that specific land is earmarked for Chief Jonilanga’s people. We are not the ones who are going to do that.

The hon. member read from the Rand Daily Mail, and then he said that President Matanzima had said that he regretted having taken independence. I challenge the hon. member to ask President Matanzima to resign. He must tell President Matanzima to give Transkei back to South Africa. At the same time, the hon. member should ask the hon. member for Yeoville what he said in 1974 when Transkei was on the point of becoming independent. The hon. member for Yeoville said at the time: If the people want to become independent, we must not stand in their way. We should rather help an independent Transkei to be viable. In 1959, the hon. member for Berea—today he denies the day of his birth; he is worse than Job— broke away from the United Party over this very land question. The Progressive Party decided that the 1936 land should be acquired. The hon. member for Houghton said that she did not have any problem with this. She said that those territories, those regions, could be represented in this House. What is more, a few days ago the hon. member for Ventersdorp was talking to the hon. member for Bryanston. When the hon. member for Bryanston was asked by the hon. member for Ventersdorp: “What are you going to do with those people?” the hon member for Bryanston replied: “There is nothing we can do.”

The fact is that the hon. member for Yeoville attended the celebrations of independent Bophuthatswana with me in December last year, and he enjoyed it as much as I did. Today we get these people, however, and now we must remember that the PFP broke away from the old United Party when the United Party said that it no longer supported the acquisition of the land according to the 1936 quota; because the land would be given to Bantustans, they were opposed to it. Then the PFP said that the land should be acquired in accordance with the 1936 quota. What are we doing now? Today we are doing precisely that, i.e. transferring the 1936 land to those States.

Nothing was said about independence at the time.

Now we get a backbencher like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who is prepared to waste the time of this House without having ascertained what the facts are. I shall discuss this in greater detail at a later stage, but the House should first calm down a little so that I can furnish the facts.

I wish to thank the hon. members for Turffontein, Ventersdorp, Newton Park and Standerton for their contributions during the debate.

I should like to come to the hon. member for Barberton. Hon. members on this side made some very responsible contributions. [Interjections.] Hon. members can laugh if they like, but I always give credit to a person who makes a contribution, and if those hon. members ever make contributions, I shall give them credit too. The hon. members are welcome to try. They must just be careful not to be infected by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, or they will become just as silly as he is.

From his party’s point of view, the hon. member for Barberton—I must say this at once—made a good speech. That I concede to him. From his party’s point of view he made a good speech. I shall come back later to the good aspects, but first I want to say a few other things. I have been asked why the Government does not declare Senthimula and Kutama to be White areas. I have also been asked whose request it was that Senthimula and Kutama should not be declared White areas. The hon. member for Lichtenburg says it was part of the agreement that Senthimula and Kutama should remain White, and that is quite correct. The hon. member for Barberton says that there are only about 30 000 people living in Kutama and Senthimula; surely they can easily be removed, because the compensatory land has already been bought. However, it is not as simple as that.

The hon. member for Barberton was a member of the commission and the hon. member for Lichtenburg was a member of the Cabinet when we decided on regional economic development. The hon. member for Lichtenburg was a member of the Cabinet when it was decided that Louis Trichardt would become a growth point. Now the hon. members ask what has changed in the process. I want to point out that one of the reasons is that Louis Trichardt has been designated a growth point. While one cannot easily create growth points within Venda, one can do so at Kutama and Senthimula. We are short of funds.

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

The hon. member may ask me a question later; I first want to deal with this point.

At this stage, the value of Kutama and Senthimula is R6,2 million. Moving the 30 000 people living there 11 km away so that they can still work in Louis Trichardt and still perform the same function which they are performing where they are living at the moment would cost us R30 million. Is this the kind of argument we have to deal with?

The hon. member says that no one asked for this. I am telling him now that the Government of Venda asked that Kutama and Senthimula should not be declared White areas. If the hon. members tell me that surely this request from them is not enough, I just want to point out that I have said before that they should be careful when they talk about these matters. The 1973 and 1975 consolidation proposals recommended that the Nsikazi area between Nelspruit and the game reserve—the hon. member for Barberton knows that region well—should be declared a White area. It is 72 000 ha in extent and there are 170 000 people living there at this stage. In 1973 and 1975, however, there were approximately 45 000 people. The hon. member for Lichtenburg was chairman of the commission which recommended in 1975 that it should be declared White. The hon. member for Barberton still insists today that Nsikazi should be declared a White area. Is that not true? [Interjections.] My word! It was recommended that the Nsikazi area should become a White area in 1975, and the compensatory land, except for a small portion, was acquired by the hon. member for Lichtenburg when he was still Deputy Minister. Only a small portion is still outstanding. All the other land has already been purchased.

You must not tell my farmers that it is a small portion.

To us it is only a small portion. R25 million is not so much money in this context. What has become of Nsikazi since that hon. member’s commission recommended that it should become a White area? The hon. member was Deputy Minister, and the shadow leader of the CP, Dr. Connie Mulder, was Minister. Without any evidence being heard by the commission, without the Cabinet being consulted in the matter, that Minister and this former Deputy Minister did not declare Nsikazi to be a White area, but gave it back to the Swazis.

We consulted the local people about the matter.

No, just wait a minute. [Interjections.] There is not a single White person in Nelspruit or White River today who would not say “Give Nsikazi to the Whites.”

We met those people.

All the people say: “Give Nsikazi to the Whites.”

We met them.

Why did that hon. member give Nsikazi back? Because the Swazis had asked for it, because Mabuza had asked for it. That was why he returned Nsikazi to them. Now we face recriminations about Kutama and Senthimula, however.

What has that got to do with Senthimula?

No, business is business. [Interjections.] We really must get our facts straight when we talk about these matters. [Interjections.] However, I want to pay the hon. member for Barberton a compliment.

Why did you not quarrel with Connie at the time?

It so happens that I did quarrel with him. [Interjections.] I am on record as having quarrelled with him. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Lichtenburg knows that I got up in the study group and objected. [Interjections.] No, the hon. member for Rissik also objected. [Interjections.] I am on record as having done that. I concede to the hon. member for Barberton that the action in connection with the Venda situation, whether these are the final boundaries or not, does appear strange. I concede that to him. However, that hon. member and the hon. member for Lichtenburg know—I maintain that to this day—that no consolidation proposals, whether or not a proposal has been approved by the Cabinet, are final until they have been accepted by this Parliament. That is the only way the matter can be finalized. [Interjections.] Because this is so, I do not begrudge those hon. members their sports with regard to that matter. KwaNdebele was a striking example, after all. The commission is investigating the matter again. It is hearing evidence after the Cabinet has accepted certain proposals. However, I want the hon. member for Lichtenburg to tell me something. Except for the excision of Kutama and Senthimula, which should allegedly have come before the commission, how much new land is being added to Venda which was not approved as far back as 1975?

But we do not know at this stage what the final decision will be.

But those hon. members are saying that they know what the final decision is. The hon. member for Barberton quoted it, after all. [Interjections.] My word! If the hon. member for Barberton says that the hon. the Minister of Manpower has announced the final boundaries … [Interjections.] Has the hon. the Minister of Manpower not said what the final boundaries are?

He has, but now the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that these are not final boundaries.

Wait a minute. Surely that is a different argument. Now I want to ask the hon. member: When the hon. the Minister of Manpower said that these were the boundaries, did the hon. member for Lichtenburg not know what the hon. the Minister meant?

Mr. Speaker, may I reply to that question by asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell me whom I am to believe, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Manpower? If he can tell me that, I shall know how to answer him. However, I do not know which one to believe.

It is not for me to say whom the hon. member should believe. He can believe whom he pleases. However, is there any difference in what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said?

Yes, of course.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that Venda had replied that they were not satisfied.

Yes.

The South African Government reacted to that by saying: No large-scale additions of land to Venda; we can talk about industrial development and related matters and we can talk about smaller additions of land. [Interjections.] After all, the hon. member for Lichtenburg has practical experience of these matters. When one is talking about boundaries and one gets consolidation proposals back from the Cabinet, one can never talk about boundaries as being final. One cannot do this for the simple reason that one has to go and study the land physically in order to determine exactly where the border should be. [Interjections.] The hon. members of the CP can have a little discussion if they like, but it is not going to get them anywhere as far as this whole matter is concerned.

I want to leave the hon. member for Barberton at that for the moment. He and I will discuss these matters with each other again and again. I should like to come to the hon. member for Berea. He asked a whole number of questions and I should like to answer them calmly. Then we can talk politics about the matter. The hon. member asked me how much the proposals contained in this Bill were going to cost. I want to tell the hon. member quite frankly how much they are going to cost, or have already cost: The Chalumna area, R16 million; Victoria East, R50 million; Stockenström, R55 million—these are the 1975 proposals. Then there is Poplar Grove, R18 million. These add up to R139 million. As far as Kutama and Senthimula are concerned, the figure is R6,2 million. I have already given this figure to the hon. member for Lichtenburg.

Then the hon. member asked me when we could expect the next announcement. The announcement concerning kwaNdebele was made on 19 February. I expect that as far as those consolidation proposals are concerned, the cost will be round about R150 million. Then the hon. member told me—and this was repeated by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and, I believe, by the hon. member for Albany—that this addition of land made no contribution to the economic activities of the Black States. I am on record as having said that land alone will not solve the problem of the national States or the independent States. I certainly do not deny having said that. Arising from this statement which I made long ago, however, the Government has taken steps and we now have the regional economic development plan. These are the facts. I say that one cannot resolve the situation by means of land alone.

The other day we discussed the motion of the hon. member for Berea concerning the resettling of people, and we were accused during that debate of having crowded people into places, etc. Now we want to give the people land, but the hon. members do not want us to do so. I cannot understand it. Let us examine the situation. In the case of Stockenström area, the following land is to be incorporated in terms of the 1975 proposals: 5 000 ha of planations, 10 000 ha of fields and 44 000 ha of pasturage. The gross margin per hectare of that area is R13,60 and the carrying capacity is one unit of large stock per hectare. If one maintained the agricultural potential in the process and if one settled people there on a subsistence economy basis—which is not necessarily the perfect or the most desirable solution, because one would prefer to settle the people on a profit-making basis, but at least a person who makes his living on a subsistence economy basis is not a burden to the State— one could accommodate between 40 000 and 45 000 people in that area alone. I can tell the hon. member for Albany and the hon. member for Berea that this area was set aside to accommodate the thousands of people who were flocking to Thornhill of their own accord from Herschel and Lady Grey.

I also want to refer to the Victoria East area. This is mainly a grazing area, and I am sure the hon. member for Lichtenburg and the hon. member for Albany will agree with me when I say that this is one of the finest grazing areas in South Africa. The situation there is unique in South Africa in that it is possible to keep six units of large stock per hectare. In that way, 30 000 people can be settled in the Victoria East area on a subsistence economy basis. However, the hon. member for Berea wants to know what this is contributing. If that is not a contribution, I should like to know what is.

The hon. member asked me whether the Black leaders were satisfied with their independence package. Remember, the 1980 proposals for the consolidation of Ciskei were not included when we began to negotiate with President Sebe about the independence of Ciskei. With this package including this land, President Sebe took independence. We have just had the example of the package of land proposed for kwaNdebele being accepted by Mr. Skosana. Does this not prove that we are succeeding?

I should like to deal with the situation of the Coloured people in the Stockenström area, a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Albany. It is not true that there are 6 000 Coloureds in the Stockenström area. According to the 1980 census, there were 660 families, and according to the Coloured Affairs Division, there are 2 500 Coloureds in the area. Nor is it true that there are 100 fanners who have title-deed. There are 310 farmers who own 89 farming units, all of them in an undivided section. This is the position of the Stockenström area with regard to the 1975 proposals. In terms of the 1980 proposals, 30 farmers are being added. Quite a lot of the people living there live on land belonging to a church, and they believe that they have title-deed. All they actually have is right of occupation. I want to make it quite clear that the land of the Coloured farmers in that area will be assessed in axactly the same way as the land belonging to the White farmers. They will receive the same compensation paid on compassionate grounds, etc., and will also pay the same transfer duties and transfer costs as the Whites.

We have the problem with the Coloureds at Stockenström at the moment that it is difficult to determine exactly who the owner is and to find title-deeds. Therefore we cannot readily and easily submit the particulars to an assessor in order to have them assessed. These 310 people on the 89 farming units to which I have referred jointly own 1 965 ha of land in an undivided share. Hon. members will realize that it is not so easy to sort out something like this. However, we do not intend to leave the Coloureds in that area to fend for themselves. We have already met a Coloured delegation. If hon. members could help me in the light of these stories that are going around, I should appreciate it. The story that these Coloured people are all going to be removed to Breidbach, for example, is nonsense. No decision has been taken in this connection as yet. The situation is that there are breadwinners in that area who do not make a living from farming. They work in Fort Beaufort or in King William’s Town, some work in Port Elizabeth and others on the Rand. The people in the area are mainly the older people, the pensioners, and women and children. Some of them have already indicated that they would like to move in the direction of Fort Beaufort, and others have indicated that they would like to move in the direction of King William’s Town. The others would like to be accommodated on a rural basis. Machinery already exists by means of which the farmers can be helped to obtain land again.

Where?

They can buy land anywhere in South Africa. Do hon. members not know that? Any Coloured person can buy land anywhere in South Africa if he can obtain a permit from the Department of Community Development. [Interjections.] Just wait a minute. After all, there are recognized Coloured rural areas. We have not left these people to fend for themselves. An inquiry was instituted as far back as 1975. The hon. member for Lichtenburg recommended at the time that as far as the consolidation there was concerned, an investigation should be conducted to ascertain where the people who would like to be resettled on a rural basis could be resettled. What is more, the Department of Internal Affairs can also give financial assistance in settling these people. We shall sort matters out. We shall not simply transfer the land to Ciskei and leave the people there to their fate. We shall help them.

The hon. member for Albany also enquired about Government stock. This is a very difficult matter. I do not think there is anyone in this House who does not sympathize with those people who had to accept Government stock in part payment or full payment for their land. We are having problems with the situation. I have now ascertained exactly how much money is outstanding, i.e. R30 million. I am referring to people who are still in possession of Government stock. If we want to do something in this connection, it will not serve any purpose to try to relieve those people who own Government stock at the moment of that Government stock. What about those who have disposed of Government stock at a loss? This complicates the matter and makes it difficult to find a solution. However, I do not believe that it is impossible to find a solution. Therefore I am going to do my best to submit formulas which may help to enable the Treasury to take a decision on this matter. It is a question of money. The Treasury must be enabled to take a decision in this connection without too much difficulty.

I should now like to react to the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg. In his onslaught on this debate, the hon. member saw fit to drag in the Vivo and Dendron matter and the whole question of quotas. Let me deal with the quota first. I am on record as having said that if we want to consolidate properly, we shall have to exceed the quota. This is not a secret. At the end of 1982, the quota had already been exceeded as follows: In the Transvaal by 170 000 ha, and in Natal by 59 000 ha. This is a book entry. The hon. member for Lichtenburg will probably inform hon. members at a later stage of the standpoint which he and the former hon. member for Waterberg adopted in the Cabinet on the handling of this matter.

I shall come back presently to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. However, the situation is as follows; Kutama and Senthimula are to become White areas, and the compensatory land in exchange for them is 20 000 ha in extent. The compensatory land in block 24 has been purchased. It is 66 000 ha in extent. The compensatory land in the case of Dientjie is 10 000 ha, in the case of Segops it is 3 200 ha, and in the case of Black spots and smaller Black spots, of which there are quite a number, it is 15 000 ha. The compensatory land in the case of Mariepskop is 3 000 ha, and in the case of Nsikazi it is 70 000 ha.

The fact is that the land acquisition programme has been proceeding extremely rapidly since 1973, while the process of turning the Black spots or badly situated areas into White areas has not been proceeding at the same pace. Therefore the situation could not be rectified.

Especially not now.

Yes, I agree with the hon. member for Lichtenburg. Now, however, the position is as follows. We have decided that if we do not remove badly situated Black areas or Black spots, the compensatory land that has already been bought for them will have to be returned. The hon. member for Pietersburg agreed with that. He said it was the correct principle. So the quota was only exceeded in the book entry.

It has not really been exceeded.

No, it has not really been exceeded. Arrangements have also been made for this situation to be divulged to the Auditor-General every year in order to find out whether any irregularities have occurred.

Yes, that is correct.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg was a member of the Cabinet when that decision was taken, of course. This was a Cabinet decision.

Yes, but it was only taken after my time.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg must be sure not to inform the rest of the hon. members of the CP in this connection. Now the hon. member for Pietersburg also inquired, with regard to the situation concerning Vivo and Dendron, why Lebowa was aware of the whole position and of the fact that Matok and Ramagoep were not going to be returned to the Whites, while the Whites only learned about it at a later stage. The hon. member told me that Lebowa knew about this at a certain stage—early in 1982—while farmers were still making representations in May 1982 for that land to be declared White. I find this very strange. The hon. member for Pietersburg, the former hon. member for Waterberg and other hon. members of this House who represent Transvaal constituencies, and whose constituencies have been affected by consolidation, as well as certain members of the Transvaal Provincial Council, such as Mr. Micky Genis, were present when the 15th report, as approved by the Cabinet, was explained to them. It happened in Pretoria, in October 1981, and all the district agricultural unions in the Transvaal that were affected by consolidation were represented there as well.

But by then Lebowa already knew.

No, Mr. Speaker, Lebowa knew nothing of this situation at that stage.

[Inaudible.]

Then the hon. member for Pietersburg should get his dates in the correct order. Lebowa was not yet aware of this at that stage.

[Inaudible.]

Well, then the hon. member for Pietersburg gave me the wrong information. Why then does the hon. member say that the farmers only learned about it after May 1982, while he and the agricultural leaders knew about it in October 1981? [Interjections.] No, Mr. Speaker, we really must deal with these matters in a proper manner. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pietersburg also knows that it says in the commission’s report that Matok and Ramagoep are going to remain.

[Inaudible.]

Of course. Surely the hon. member for Lichtenburg knew that, too. Now accusations are being made against us today, Mr. Speaker, Oom Koos Botha of Christiana, who used to be a good voter of mine, told me: “Hendrik, if we have to take the blame, then we shall take it.” Therefore I shall take the blame if I have to. [Interjections.] However, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept responsibility for things which neither I nor the Government is responsible for.

Hear, hear!

I believe that I can now leave the matter at that, as far as hon. members on this side of the House are concerned. I should just like to thank the hon. member for King William’s-Town very sincerely for his contribution. I think the hon. member for King William’s Town taught the PFP a lesson in etiquette and good manners when he told them that we should remember that this legislation concerns an agreement which has been entered into. This is an international agreement which has to be honoured and South Africa must keep its word. I thank the hon. member for that. The hon. member also furnished some very useful information about land use which I think we can also apply in South Africa. I also want to tell the hon. member that I share his sentiments concerning the position of the border farmers. I think we all sympathize with the situation of the border farmers. There are recommendations before the Cabinet in this connection. The hon. member made a very positive contribution, and I also find in the daily work which we do in connection with consolidation that the hon. member makes a positive contribution there as well.

Finally, I just want to say this to the hon. members of the PFP. I think those hon. members should sit down and reconsider this question of the consolidation of land. We have kwaNdebele, which is soon to become an independent State. The standpoint of those hon. members with regard to the Black States and the diversity of Black peoples in this country is becoming so irrelevant that no-one is going to listen to them any more. They cannot have their bread buttered on both sides. Those hon. members must say today whether, if they came into power tomorrow, they would tell President Mangope of Bophuthatswana, President Mphepu of Venda, President Matanzima of Transkei, all the heads of all the independent States, that they must return those States to South Africa. What would they do with those States? Why do those hon. members not say what they would do with those States? They are not in favour of a federation. That is the policy of the hon. members on the other side. It is not the policy of the official Opposition. If they are not in favour of a federation or of some form of confederation, then there is only one course left for them to take. That is to be honest and to tell those Black independent States: When we come into power, we shall deal with you as follows: You will have to get out so that we can regain control over you, because we are the White masters in South Africa.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is being introduced to replace the National Culture Promotion Act, Act No. 27 of 1969, which is being repealed together with the amending Acts. Although the majority of the provisions of the existing Act are being incorporated in the new Bill, nevertheless there are certain aspects concerning which the existing Act is deficient, and accordingly new provisions are being proposed. However, this does not detract from the scope and diversity of valuable cultural promotion work which has been and is being supported, both financially and by way of organization, by the State.

The approach adopted in the Bill is based on the same principles as those underlying the existing Act, viz, that the State does not pursue culture on a primary basis, but does foster culture by way of encouragement and support of community and private sector bodies and persons. Moreover, the concepts “informal cultivation” and “informal out-school education” in the existing act are now being amended to some extent by the insertion of the phrase “non-formal education out-of-school education of adults and youthful persons”—which, in passing, was used in the HSRC report—and this is done in clause 3(5).

The deficiencies in the existing Act that have come to the fore and that the new Bill seeks to eliminate, are threefold.

†In the first place, whilst legislative provision has been made for the promotion of the culture of the White population in South Africa, no such provision exists in respect of the cultures of the other population groups, although the responsible departments administratively, and by virtue of budgetary provisions, do promote or sponsor cultural programmes for the benefit of the other population groups as well. It is, however, desirable that cultural promotion among all the population groups should, enjoy the necessary legislative status and recognition. Therefore provision is now being made in clause 4 of the Bill for the administration of the provisions of the Bill to be assigned, by proclamation by the State President, to different Ministers for different purposes, and so also in the interests of different population groups.

The intention of the Bill is therefore to continue the differentiated promotion of culture according to population groups, but also to provide a legal basis for such cultural promotion in respect of all population groups. It would incidentally also form the basis on which, in the proposed new constitutional dispensation, the promotion of culture could be handled as a typical group-responsibility by the respective chambers of Parliament.

It is anticipated that the new arrangement will provide an incentive towards doing fuller justice to cultural promotion among all the different population groups. The HSRC Report on the Provision of Education has rightly emphasized the importance of informal and non-formal education as part of the total provision of education. The promotion of culture through non-formal education makes an indispensible contribution towards raising the level of development of the community, towards the improvement, among adults, of literacy—and therefore also of their capacity for being trained—-towards improving the school-readiness of children, and consequently also their capacity for benefiting positively from the available formal educational opportunities at school. A purposeful programme for the promotion of culture among adults is therefore of comparable importance to the improvement of formal educational opportunities for children and for adults, and in fact forms an essential component of the latter.

*In the second place, the existing Act limits the envisaged fostering of culture—except with regard to relations with other countries—–solely to the culture of the White population of the Republic. This has been interpreted to mean that members of other population groups may not be involved in any of the promotional activities, and as a result this hampered the freedom of autonomous cultural bodies—that receive State aid in terms of the Act—as regards occasionally involving members of other population groups in their efforts as well. However, it is also true that the Western culture of the Whites has found favour across a broad spectrum among other population groups, and in regard to various aspects it cannot in practice be prompted as an interest for Whites only. Therefore members of other population groups have a need for, and claim to, a share in the promotion of certain aspects of the Whites’ culture, particularly in the arts, which have become the common property of other groups as well.

Particularly as regards cultural advancement in the fields of the creative arts, such as literature in English or in Afrikaans, music and the plastic arts, it is not always possible to define the limits of the cultures of various population groups. Authors in Afrikaans or English, painters, sculptors and composers do indeed belong to various population groups, but to a large extent create, besides art whose appeal is confined to a specific group, art whose appeal extends across the boundaries of race and population group. Accordingly autonomous cultural bodies receiving State aid ought not to be denied flexibility, so that where desirable and appropriate, they may in certain spheres make their activities devoted to the fostering of culture, [accessible] to members of other population groups as well.

The aim of the Bill is the following: without suspending differentiated fostering of culture in terms of population group, nevertheless to leave room for the involving of other population groups in specific cultural activities such as art exhibitions, literary competitions or musical performances.

The third deficiency in the existing Act is that it became evident that the National Cultural Council and its various commissions comprised an unnecessarily comprehensive and expensive structure in view of the limited functions they carry out in practice. These consist largely of the furnishing of advice to the department every year with regard to financial support to various cultural bodies. Moreover, the financial support that may be granted, is limited. The National Cultural Council itself carried out an investigation into its own efficiency and reached the unanimous conclusion that it could without difficulty be replaced by according statutory recognition to the—at present informal—regional advisory councils which, in practice, also liaise more intimately at the moment with the local culture-fostering activities of the department. The vast majority of the community organizations which are supported by the State with regard to the fostering of culture in terms of the Act, are organizations of a local regional nature. Recognition of the regional councils as proposed will enable representatives of the community to determine cultural needs and identify activities for support. The initiative for cultural promotion is in this way being shifted more effectively to the community itself.

The National Cultural Council was also of the opinion that there was in fact a need for a South African council for the promotion of the arts, and this matter is at present being investigated by the Commission of Enquiry into the Promotion of the Performing Arts that has been appointed by the State President. This idea will be given further consideration as soon as the recommendations in this regard of the above commission have been received.

In the meantime the Bill makes provision for the officially recognized establishment of regional councils for cultural affairs to replace the National Culture Council. In clause 3(6) the Minister concerned is also being authorized to consult experts from the regional councils, where necessary, in respect of countrywide activities in specific spheres relating to the fostering of culture. With a view to differentiated promotion of culture, provision is expressly being made in clause 3(1) for several cultural councils to be appointed in a specific region by relevant Ministers so that in this way provision may be made for the needs of various population groups.

For the rest, the Bill makes provision for the delegation of powers and the making of regulations, as in the Act that is being replaced.

Mr. Speaker, the Culture Promotion Bill which has just been introduced by the hon. the Minister introduces a number of very significant changes in the field of cultural activities in that section 2(a) of the National Culture Promotion Act, Act No. 27 of 1969, reads—

In the Bill before the House at the moment section 2(1)(a) reads—

I think that is a particularly significant change. The word “White” has been removed which indicates that the Government now accepts that it has a responsibility to foster culture on a non-racial basis in the interests of South Africa and all its people. It is an admission that it is unwise and undesirable to legislate in the field of culture on a racial basis and to provide for the culture of the White group to the exclusion of the other groups in our country. This undoubtedly is a very significant change in approach and it has many important implications for the fostering and development of culture in our society. In fact, one could say that the Government now, in line with its concept of the sharing of power, is with this Bill extending this concept to the field of culture and that we will now have culture-sharing for South Africa and its people. Undoubtedly it will be healthy culture-sharing and it will be very healthy for South Africa when this Bill becomes a reality.

The next significant fact about the Bill before the House is the exclusion of the provision for a National Cultural Council. We understand that the National Cultural Council—the hon. the Minister referred to it in his Second Reading Speech—did not prove a great success in the past. That may be so. However, we believe that the reason for its failure, if indeed it did really fail, should be sought not in the concept of a national body for this very important task but in the structure, functions and powers that were given to the National Cultural Council by the previous legislation. We believe that a National Cultural Council can operate very successfully provided, firstly, it is composed of a balanced team of real experts in the field of cultural activities, secondly, they have the power and the funds necessary to give effect to their initiatives, and thirdly, they are freed from the stultifying effects of bureaucratic restrictions and ministerial interference. We therefore believe that the National Cultural Council, if it failed in the past, failed because the Government, as is the case in practically every other field in our society, wanted to have a body which would act as its agent rather than a body of talented independent persons who were acknowledged experts in their fields, who were representative of a broad spectrum of cultural activity in the country and who could operate effectively, free from Government restrictions and interference. A National Cultural Council such as we envisage could very effectively carry out all the laudable provisions set out in clause 2 of the Bill and thereby relieve the Minister of this responsibility. The big advantage that flows from a body of independent experts is that they make their talents, time, energy and enthusiasm available to the country and its people at very little cost, for the execution of these responsibilities and are, as a result, able to bring new initiatives, new thinking and new ideas to bear in this field. Such a body needs only to be provided with the necessary facilities, funds and freedom to be able to carry out its responsibilities very effectively.

In the field of the allocation of bursaries, grants and other forms of assistance the Government is then freed from the possibility of criticism that it practises favouritism in the allocation of such assistance in that the decisions that are taken are taken by the representatives of the whole spectrum of cultural activities in the country. In terms of the provisions of the Bill before the House all this work will now be carried out by the Minister and his department. They have the full responsibility to carry out the whole programme of the allocation of funds and the provision of assistance and guidance. In other words, the bureaucracy will take all the decisions without the benefit of the advice and guidance of independent experts in the field of cultural activities. This is also at a time when the Public Service can ill afford to increase its workload, given the known staff shortages in the Service.

The next major change is the introduction of the concept of regional councils. We support this idea but, for all the reasons set out regarding the composition and the nature of a National Cultural Council, we believe that the regional councils should be composed of independent experts in the field of culture in the region concerned and that the members of the council should be representatives of the whole spectrum of cultural activities within that region. However, the present Bill provides for regional councils the members of which will be appointed by the Minister. It would appear that the majority of the members of regional councils could very well be Government officials. We believe that this will defeat the objective of having a regional council and that in fact these councils will tend to be as ineffectual as the previous National Council is said to have been, and for the very same reasons. We therefore strongly urge that the Government consider the creation of regional councils that will be truly representative of the cultural activities in the areas concerned and that they should be composed of persons who are independent experts in their respective fields. We also appeal to the Government to provide for these councils the necessary facilities and funds in order to give effect to the functions with which these councils have been charged in terms of clause 3(5) of the Bill.

Clause 4(1) gives rise to some uneasiness on our part. It reads as follows—

The Government has taken power-sharing to heart. They are now having healthy power-sharing among their Ministers. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning does not realize what he has set loose in the ranks of the NP. He has achieved a very big breakthrough. But, quite seriously, this clause appears to provide for the promotion of cultural acitivities on a racially segregated basis in so far as such activities fall under the control of different Ministers who are in control of departments which deal with different racial components in our society. While we understand that in a plural society such as South Africa, with a diversity of cultural, ethnic and religious groups, there should be room for such groups to promote and practise their own cultural activities, we also believe that a rigid compartmentalization of cultural activities on a racial basis is unwise and counter-productive. However, we are sympathetic to the concept of different areas, different cultural groups, i.e. different ethnic and racial groups, that wish on a voluntary basis to practise and promote their own cultural activities. So, for instance, we are quite sympathetic to the fact that in the Western Cape there is a cabernet culture and, in the Soutpansberg, we have a buffalo-biltong culture.

*I do not know whether it is true, but it has been mentioned to me that the hon. the Minister who is responsible for TV programmes is going to invite the hon. the Minister of Manpower to take part in the “Biltong and Potroast” programme. Hon. members can tell me whether it is true.

†We believe very strongly in the principle of freedom of association which means that individuals and groups should not only be permitted to promote and practise the cultural activities of their choice, but that they should also be assisted to do so and that their right to do so should be enshrined in the laws of the land.

The hon. the Minister made the point in his speech that the provisions in the Bill, particularly in so far as the Ministers and the ability to divide the responsibilities among the Ministers is concerned, would fit in neatly with the concept of the three-chamber parliament and that cultural responsibilities would obviously be allocated to the individual chambers of Parliament. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is here and he can consult with the hon. the Minister of National Education and possibly help him in this respect.

Within White South Africa there is another very important component of our community and our society, namely the Black community. I should like to know what chamber of Parliament is going to be responsible for the promotion of Black cultural interests and activities. Will that be a matter that will be dealt with by one of the separate chambers or will it be a matter of common concern? And in what way will the Black community of South Africa have an opportunity of being represented in the legislative and administrative bodies which are going to decide on matters relating to their cultural interests and activities? Are we not dealing with yet another of the giant anomalies, another of those colossal contradictions, in the policy of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and should he not possibly give a little more attention to that particular aspect of his policy, and take this opportunity of explaining to us how he foresees it can be handled?

Mr. Speaker, I have already said that we believe that the principle of freedom of association, which means that individuals and groups should not only be permitted to promote and to practise the cultural activities of their choice but that they should also be assisted to do so because it is their right to do so, should be enshrined in the laws of the land. We believe that that principle is a very important one—the principle of freedom of association. Furthermore, we believe that contact across cultural and group boundaries should be allowed to develop in a normal and unfettered way in order to allow for the sharing of cultural experiences and values. This brings about…

Horace, while you are reading your speech it sounds meaningful. However, when you speak off the cuff you talk nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, as soon as I have finished my speech I shall hand over my notes to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in order that he may write them into the policy of the NP. I have absolutely no objection to it. I shall hand them to him with pleasure. That is an agreement between us in any case. [Interjections.]

†This brings about inter-group understanding and appreciation of one another’s culture and values. It breaks down prejudice and inter-group tensions. It permits the development of cultural values and practices free of ethnic and racial restrictions, which in turn contributes to the development of a common commitment of all the peoples in our society to the interests and the values of the society as a whole. In this connection I should like to quote a few paragraphs from the PFP’s booklet setting out its constitutional proposals for South Africa. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of National Education a question.

*I want the hon. the Minister to listen to me now. Does he have a copy of this pamphlet?

No.

I think certain other hon. members of the NP do have copies of it. Mr. Speaker, may I ask them whether all of them have copies of this pamphlet? [Interjections.] If they do not have copies of this pamphlet, Mr. Speaker, I can now understand why the NP went off the rails as far as their constitutional plans are concerned. Surely when one goes on tour in South Africa, one does not do so without an A.A. tour guide. Similarly, when one sets out upon the road of constitutional development, one cannot do so successfully without the aid of this pamphlet. [Interjections.] We in the PFP will make a free copy of this pamphlet available to each hon. member of the NP. [Interjections.] As soon as those hon. members have the opportunity to make use of this pamphlet, they will be able to follow the road and not go astray and keep up their courage on their road to the future. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should very much like to quote a few paragraphs from this pamphlet to hon. members of the NP. I believe they could make good use of it in regard to the problems they are at present experiencing with their constitutional plans. I quote from page 10 of this pamphlet, in case hon. members on the opposite side should wish to make a note of it. It is a very clever man who wrote this pamphlet. Hon. members must listen carefully now. I quote, as follows—

Hon. members must first listen carefully now. I quote further—

Very clever, isn’t it? Hon. members must again listen very carefully. [Interjections.] I quote further—

Hon. members must listen very carefully now. It goes on to say—

[Interjections.] I realize that that hon. member cannot understand it, but there are other hon. members on the opposite side who will understand it. I quote further—

The hon. member is stealing Parliament’s money now to get his stuff published. [Interjections.]

The quotation reads further—

The last paragraph reads as follows—

This is the committee of the PFP that drew up the policy—

Now, Mr. Speaker, if those hon. members would acquire this pamphlet, they could read and study it further. [Interjections.] I realize only too well that many hon. members on that side will not understand it and I sympathize with them. However, there are hon. members on that side of the House who will be able to understand it, and the hon. the Minister is one of them. I have quoted these passages because I hope the Government will take note of it and that in future they will refrain from making the accusation that in the policy we are suggesting for South Africa the PFP does not accept and thoroughly take into account the plurality of and the existence of the various cultural, ethnical and other groups in South Africa.

†To summarize, Sir—one has always to summarize for these hon. members because it is a little difficult for them to understand the written word—we accept the plural nature of South Africa.

You do not. [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, that is exactly what I have just said. I read it out so nicely for the hon. member and, on top of that, I read it in English! [Interjections.] I am afraid that hon. member will never understand it. [Interjections.] Shall I read it again? [Interjections.]

Order!

To summarize again: We accept the plural nature of South Africa. South Africa is a nation with a diversity of cultural, ethnic and religious groups. Let me emphasize that. Every cultural group must be guaranteed the right to develop and practise their culture if they so wish. Every individual must be free to choose the cultural activity of his choice or association with the cultural group of his choice. Fourthly, we as a party or as the Government of South Africa will give legal protection to the rights of those people. We will have a Bill of Rights which the present Government is afraid to accept. The Government is afraid to accept the concept of a Bill of Rights for South Africa and this, in fact, gives the lie to their entire constitutional proposals. If the Government talks about the sharing of power, let me say this.

*If they speak of full power-sharing as one of the hon. members on that side put it, if they say that they are going to remove all forms of discrimination, if they say, as the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said years ago at Palm Springs, that they are going to create equal opportunities, if they say all those things, but at the same time they refuse to accept the concept of a Bill of Human Rights, they are destroying the credibility of their intentions and policy.

That is your Pretoria speech; deliver your Houghton speech now.

Yes, I can speak in Soutpansberg as well.

†We will provide not only for a Bill of Rights which will guarantee these things for individuals and groups in South Africa, but we will also provide for an independent, powerful constitutional court which will interpret that Bill of Rights and apply that Bill of Rights. We will go much further to prove our bona fides. We will provide for every group in South Africa, every cultural group in South African to establish a cultural council that can be registered with the constitutional court and every cultural council will have a representative in the Senate of South Africa to show that we are serious about it and to give people organized into cultural councils a voice and representation in the highest legislative chambers of the nation.

I want to read from another page. For those who wish to write down the page numbers, this is on page 26 of the English version, paragraph 5.4.2.1(b)

The Federal Senate will consist of—

*I am offering it to the NP free of charge; it will be a fantastic improvement to the policy of that party and it will be acceptable to all the cultural groups in South Africa. It will also demonstrate that the NP is willing to give cultural groups a significant say and participation in the processes of government.

One man, one vote and two women!

Oh, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunication is saying that the PFP’s policy is: “one man, one vote”. Surely that is downright untruth! That hon. the Minister knows that this party has a basic principle that we shall not discriminate against people on account of sex. The party will not give the vote only to each male citizen; we shall give the vote to each female citizen too. [Interjections.] Surely it is a downright untruth when an hon. Minister suggests in this House that this party will give the vote only to male citizens! Now really, it is a grossly irresponsible act when an hon. Minister …

Order!

Sir, I withdraw that immediately. [Interjections.] We cannot allow hon. Ministers to come forward with such rash untruths in this House. That just prejudices our party. [Interjections.]

If there is talk of sexual discrimination there is one thing I want to make clear. What is going to happen to the sauna in this three-chamber Parliament of ours? [Interjections.] Are there going to be three saunas or perhaps one sauna with three partitions? [Interjections.]

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to digress a great deal for the amusement of many hon. members, but I think he should come back to the Bill now.

Sir, I have only one more thing to say about the sauna, and that is the following: Look, we as a party do not allow discrimination on the basis of sex. When I refer to the hon. members for Houghton and Germiston District it is true that they are excluded from the sauna.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, when we are speaking of parties that will not accept those things; that is something which the PFP will not accept! Sir, that is naked discrimination! [Interjections.]

†We believe that if the hon. the Minister were to bear these thoughts in mind in the application of the provisions of this Bill, a major contribution could be made to the promotion of culture generally in South Africa and the practise of culture by individuals and groups in our society in such a way as to enrich the life of our country and our nation as a whole. Active participation in cultural activities—and the promotion and development of these activities—develops a healthy pride and confidence in the individual, the group and the nation. It adds meaning to the life of the individual, develops the interests of groups and brings prestige to our nation. For these reasons the Government’s interest in, and support of, the promotion of culture in our society is both necessary and worthwhile.

We in the PFP therefore not only support the Second Reading of this Bill, but also wish the hon. the Minister well in the implementation of the Bill. We hope that he has listened with interest and attention to what we have tried to bring to his notice and that he will apply it in the implementation of the Bill in practice in South Africa, in the interests of all our people, in the interests of our nation and our country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Bryanston on his appointment as chief spokesman on National Education in the ranks of the official Opposition. However, whether I can congratulate the official Opposition on the choice of the hon. member for Bryanston as chief spokesman on National Education, is another matter. [Interjections.] He will have to show whether he is an improvement on the previous hon. member who acted as chief spokesman on that side of the House. However, one thing is certain and that is that the hon. member is definitely a better clown than his predecessor. I have no doubt on that score. That is not to say, of course, that he is a good clown, but at least he is better than the previous hon. member.

However, I now wish to be more serious. I am somewhat concerned about the fact that that hon. member, who now bears the responsibility of being chief spokesman on National Education has seized the first possible opportunity to drag blatant politics into a debate in which we are concerned with an aspect of culture. The hon. the Minister rightly remarked that the hon. member was making a cheap effort to drag their political ideology into this debate on the fostering of culture. As I said, this causes me disquiet. If that is going to be the point of departure of that hon. member in the future, I fear that a responsible debate on education in this country may be wrecked by that side of the House.

I shall refer in the course of my speech to certain aspects of the speech by the hon. member for Bryanston because it is very clear to me that he let slip a very good occasion—I thank the official Opposition, of course, for supporting the Second Reading— and bedevilled the commendable aims and principles of this legislation by making certain allegations and taking matters in this legislation out of context. This is an aspect which I shall come back to later.

To be able to conduct a meaningful discussion of this legislation before us, we must first be unanimous as regards the concept of culture, because it has already been the case that the hon. member for Bryanston was totally at sea because he interpreted culture quite wrongly.

Every people, however small or negligible, has its own culture. Everyone will probably agree with that. It is accordingly the task of every people to maintain and foster, develop or extend that culture. But what is this “culture” that we speak about? There are two incorrect conceptions of culture. The first is that culture is limited to the most profound manifestations of the human spirit as expressed in literature, poetry, prose—a kind of status symbol for the few. That is the one mistaken conception. However, there is another mistaken conception, which results in culture being disparaged as something which is out of date, something that is past, something that belongs to the past, such as “velskoene”, folk dancing, etc. However, what do we find? Culture does not belong only to those who wear a white collar. Culture does not belong only to those who take part in folk dancing, nor does culture belong only to those who are seriously involved in politics or who appreciate Chopin, Beethoven, etc., who have gone to see La Traviata, or who have read Van Wyk Louw, Opperman or Uys Krige. No, Sir. Culture is as little confined to that as it is merely something from the past. As soon as a people becomes aware of new needs, then renewal is sought and found and, if principles are not sacrificed, these new things have to be considered and accepted, while preserving those principles. Usually this is an enriching process for any people.

Thus the meaning of culture has hovered between “boeremusiek”, folk dancing and jukskei on the one hand, and sophisticated music concerts, cultural evenings and book-learnedness on the other. Culture is a broad stream. The activities of the most unsophisticated person are marked by culture. In the same way, the doings of the most academic person and the philosophical ideas of the most intellectual are marked by the concept of culture, because culture means to create. It derives from the word “cultura” which means to cultivate, embellish and to preserve. I want to stress that culture is not merely something that is linked to the past. It is also something new. It is something that happens every day. It is also something that will be created in the future. To examine critically the new things we see and hear around us, and then to strengthen what is positive and weaken and even neutralize what is negative in it—that is culture.

Now, I also wish to add that culture is not necessarily confined to that which has emanated from the ideas of a specific people. Other cultures of other peoples can also have an enriching effect on the culture of a specific people. This can also aid in the development and creation of new culture. Consider the role of Shakespeare in the thinking of the Afrikaner, of the Afrikaans-speaking person? How many of our people are not acquainted with Goethe and Faust? How many of us have not read Guido Gezelle, Hooft or Kloos? How many of us do not feast our eyes on the paintings of Rembrandt? How many of us do not enjoy the music of Mozart? Therefore, what I want to stress is that the culture of a specific people can also have an enriching effect on the cultural creation process of another people. What I have just said must form the basic point of departure. If that is the basic point of departure, then we can argue meaningfully about legislation such as the Bill we have before us today. Nor, then, would we make the mistake of the hon. member for Bryanston, in that he reads into the Bill specific things that are certainly not there.

In the first place, the hon. member for Bryanston argued that “culture sharing” would occur by way of this Bill. Surely that is untrue. What this legislation does indicate very clearly—I shall come back to this in a moment—is that each of the various groups is being accorded the opportunity to preserve and extend its culture, but also that for practical reasons, the opportunity is being afforded to pursue specific forms of culture jointly. Here one has in mind, for example, literature, music, etc. That is where the emphasis lies. The emphasis is not, as the hon. member for Bryanston argued, on the idea that we are now moving away from the principle of separate cultures. In that argument the emphasis is misplaced.

This Bill replaces the National Culture Promotion Act of 1969. That Act made specific provision for the promotion of the White culture, whereas no statutory basis existed for the promotion of other cultures. I am prepared to recognize at once that to a certain extent this amounted to discrimination against other cultures, because there is an Act which makes provision for White culture, whereas there is no Act that makes provision for the promotion of the other cultures. The 1983 Bill seeks to afford equal opportunities for all cultures in our country. Although it is true that every people has its own culture that is indivisibly linked to its own philosophy of life, it is equally true that there is a degree of communality with regard to the pursuit of culture in the various spheres, as I indicated earlier. For example, this legislation makes it possible for art exhibitions to be held jointly by artists belonging to the various groups. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This Bill seeks to afford various peoples the opportunity to develop, foster and extend their own autogenous culture. For that reason the task is not being entrusted to one specific Minister, e.g. the Minister of National Education, but to the Minister responsible for the education and culture of the various ethnic groups.

I am amazed that the hon. member for Bryanston is unable to understand this. The hon. member quoted clause 4, but failed to understand what was stated therein. If he had understood the clause he would have realized that the crux of the matter is that the various Ministers responsible for the various cultural groups are being given the statutory basis on which to foster the culture of the group in question. We find this in clause 4, and in the definition of “Minister" at the beginning of the Bill. This Bill seeks to afford the various peoples the opportunity to extend their culture. That is why bursaries and grants with which to undertake study tours are being made available to all persons who qualify in accordance with the aims of cultural promotion, irrespective of their ethnicity. This is in contrast to the previous legislation, which was only aimed at the Whites. We find this in clause 2.

Accordingly the National Cultural Council is being replaced by the various regional councils for cultural affairs, as is clear from in clause 3. I want to state clearly, particularly in view of the speech by the hon. member for Bryanston, that in terms of the legislation, the various cultural councils will be established for the various population groups. It is not true that we are going to have one cultural council that will promote culture at the local level for the various cultural groups. The legislation provides that every Minister may establish a regional council for his specific cultural group so that that specific regional council may undertake the development of the culture of the ethnic group in question. The necessary communality may then be maintained at specific levels, as I indicated earlier.

These regional councils must act as cultural guardian in the region in question in particular, too, by way of non-formal teaching and education as a facet of community teaching and education. The regional councils will give the community a say in and control of its own activities relating to the fostering of culture. I think that this is of cardinal importance. It is not for the State to pursue culture for the whole country and people. Moreover, it is for every specific community to make its contribution with regard to the fostering of culture, and it is with this very aim in mind that the regional councils afford the opportunity to give the community the opportunity, via the regional councils, to foster their culture. Surely it is true that due to the materialistic spirit in which we are trapped, very often more attention is given to the economic and financial sides, the level of prosperity, than to the nation’s culture. This threatens to upset the individual’s system of values.

It is also true that through their professional life, most of our people have been trapped in a frantic network in which ambition, success, effort and money come first, whereas we do not provide sufficient opportunity to commit ourselves in respect of the fostering of culture as well. I am sorry to say this, but we also have a problem with regard to our parental homes. Due to the obsession with the opportunities created by economic circumstances, absolutely nothing is being done in some parental homes to instil a love of one s own culture and the pursuit of culture in general. The law alone cannot provide culture. Therefore it is necessary that parents, too, be approached in this regard and that it be put to the parents that they, too, have a specific task to perform, i.e. instilling in their children the essential need for the preservation of culture. In this way the parental home may be the arsenal of preparedness for every child. The church, too, has its task, as does education. Education must be the centre for positive guidance-oriented national culture.

In conclusion, I want to say once again to the hon. member for Bryanston that we must be careful not to elevate politics— which is of course also part of the broad concept of culture—when we are dealing with a culture debate such as this or when we are dealing with education, although culture does incorporate the facets of education and politics. In addition, we must guard in these times against the hijacking of cultural organizations by politics. The political sphere is a sphere which is served by political parties. In contrast, we have the cultural organizations that serve culture, and it would be a mistake if we as politicians sought to bedevil the cultural task of the various cultural organizations. I fear that this does occur. Accordingly I wish to make an earnest appeal to all who may be involved not to misuse the cultural organizations in an effort to promote political objects.

I wish to conclude by giving the support of this side of the House to this important amending measure, a measure which, in my opinion, is worthwhile and long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, in the Bill at present before this House, provision is being made for the preservation, development, fostering and extension of culture by planning, organizing, co-ordinating and providing facilities for the utilization of leisure and for non-formal education. This afternoon I wish to put before hon. members for their consideration certain characteristics of culture. A person’s culture consists of the way in which he develops, refines and ennobles nature. Man has been given a cultural task by his Creator. In the very first book of the Bible, Genesis I, we read that we must—

The task of man is to unfold, develop and turn to his use what God has enfolded in his Creation. Culture then, is how one developes and refines nature and, as I said, how one ennobles it. Nature is hunger, rage, fear, terror, cravings and so on, but culture is how one deals with these things. Culture is the nature of one’s interaction with one’s natural surroundings and one’s natural disposition, enabling one to turn them to one’s use and make them habitable. Culture is transformation of the human condition as fate, into the human condition as deed. In brief, culture is the subjugation of nature. Therefore every people and race will have its own culture, in other words, its own way of subjugating nature and turning it to its use.

Therefore the culture of different nations and races will differ. My culture has been built up over three and a half centuries. My culture consists of my language, my religion, my marital and family links, my education, my utilization of leisure and recreation. Language, of course, is the beginning of culture. In this I include music, clothing and all other expressions of art. Taking everything into account, culture varies from group to group, from people to people and from race to race, and sometimes even from place to place. Perhaps the differences are not very radical but tradition does influence the culture of each group. In this light, then, I wish to say that we regard in a favourable light the establishment of regional councils that will be subsidized and will render certain services.

The regional councils must be established, and the holding of inspections and the submission of reports as provided in clause 2 is also something we regard as essential. What is envisaged in clause 3(5) is that the regional council will be best able to preserve, foster and extend culture for the region in an out-of-school context by way of non-formal out-of-school education. This can be presented to adults and youthful persons in the following spheres: The visual sphere, the sphere of acquisition of knowledge, the sphere of leisure time expenditure and several others.

Clause 4 of the Bill provides that the State President may by proclamation assign the administration of the provisions of this legislation to a Minister or partly to one Minister, as the hon. member for Bryanston also noted, and partly to another Minister or Ministers, or any part thereof for certain purposes to one Minister and for other purposes to another Minister. Therefore we should like to know whether the Minister could tell us whether the Minister for every other population group will also be responsible for promotion of culture on a regional basis to their various peoples, namely the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs for culture to the Indians and Coloureds, and the hon. the Minister of Education and Training for culture to the Black peoples? After all, it is very important that each group should remain linked to and should foster its own culture, because what one achieves oneself, what one brings about oneself, is always one’s most precious possession. The fostering of culture is and remains a high priority to us, and accordingly we shall have to wait and see what this legislation means for us, as long as it remains group-oriented, of course, because this is important for the continued existence of a worthy group culture and national culture.

It will depend on the hon. the Minister’s replies to the above as to whether we support this Bill or not.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to anticipate the reply of the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for Germiston District. I do believe, however, that it is clear that what is contained in the Bill under discussion in no way impinges on the need for differentiated culture promotion by each group in South Africa. I do not believe that the wording of the Bill at any point is such as to impinge on the need of each group to pursue its culture in accordance with its own traditions and customs. That will not be interfered with in any way.

I believe that we should put it to the CP that they appear to be obsessed with the idea that everything has ostensibly been going wrong since they left the NP in February 1982.

Yes, of course it has! [Interjection.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rebut that assumption at once by saying that things have been going much better with us since February 1982. [Interjections.] In the second place, I want to make the statement that the legislation we are discussing here today was framed long before those hon. members left the NP. Admittedly, it was not submitted to the caucus of the NP prior to that time, but I happened to be a member of the National Cultural Council at the time, and still am, together with a number of other members, and I happen to be the only politician on that council.

Was it a political appointment?

I shall give the hon. member the names of the members of the National Cultural Council in a moment. He need not concern himself about that. The National Cultural Council decided on its own accord as far back as 1980 to investigate its functioning so as to ascertain what could be done to improve the objective of culture promotion in South Africa. I am putting it in this specific way because that was before this hon. Minister took over the portfolio of National Education. Nor did the Cultural Council undertake that investigation on the instruction of this hon. Minister’s predecessor or of any Minister. If the CP is so obsessed in this regard as to seek to suggest that everything has been going wrong since they left this party, then I say to them not to tell it to this party but to the members of the National Cultural Council. The hon. the Minister has already told us that what is contained in this legislation did not emanate from him but from the National Cultural Council itself. He has already told hon. members that this was unanimously agreed to by the members of the National Cultural Council. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I think we should now tell the hon. member for Rissik who the members of this council are. The members of the National Cultural Council, as at present constituted, are: Prof. Gawie Cillié, chairman of the FAK, Dr. P. M. Robbertse, Mrs. Johanna Raath of the Vrouefederasie, Prof. S. A. Hulme, Prof. Geoff Cronje, Mr. Chris Swanepoel of the SABC, Prof. A. Werth, Mr. Douglas Fuchs, Prof. D. P. Inskip, Dr. A. R. de Villiers, Prof. H. B. Thom, Mr. A. Cornelissen and Mr. P. Delport, the town clerk of Pretoria. I suggest to the hon. member for Rissik that he go and tell those gentlemen what he has just said in this House.

The hon. member for Rissik was not even aware of the existence of that council. He heard about it for the first time this afternoon. [Interjections.]

The content of this legislation was unanimously submitted by the members of that National Cultural Council as a recommendation to the Minister in 1981. The facts are quite simple. This legislation was not presented to Parliament last year purely because of a too heavy programme of work. However, it was finalized in 1981 in the form in which we have it before us at present.

I want to return for a moment to the investigation instituted by the National Cultural Council. I wish I had been able to elaborate to some extent on the activities of the National Cultural Council. From my side I should like to thank those hon. members of the National Cultural Council for the privilege of working with them and for the opportunity to observe the way in which fathers of culture—much greater than those hon. members of the CP and much more in earnest about real culture than they are— performed this task in the National Cultural Council.

In investigating its existence and nature, the National Cultural Council ascertained, firstly, that its most important function in terms of its present existence was to allocate money to voluntary organizations applying for money or merely to approve of the recommendations in this regard of the regional councils as they exist at the moment. When we look at the budget of this council, we see that the amount of money about which the decisions had to be taken is indeed not very considerable. At the same time it was ascertained that in the present circumstances the work was being done by the regional offices of the Department of National Education. At present this is the situation, and there is a reason for this. The point is that cultural activities in South Africa have already been regionalized at this point in time. The reason is obvious. Culture is not only pursued in Pretoria, Johannesburg or in Cape Town: it is pursued throughout the country. It does not matter with what voluntary cultural organization we are dealing; in each of those specific regional points in the country there is a need for culture, and culture is exercised on the basis of the participation of voluntary organizations. Consequently there is a need at the local or regional level to stimulate those activities through the department.

Consequently the Cultural Council came to the conclusion that the function of the council in its present form did not justify its existence and that the objectives with regard to culture promotion could best be served at the local and regional level as well as in a local and regional context. It is the function of the State to promote culture and not to pursue it as such. Therefore the purpose could also best be served by the regional offices of the department with the assistance of the recommendations and advice of regional councils for the promotion of culture. I think this summarizes the essence of the recommendations of the National Cultural Council which resulted in the dispensation as we have it today in the legislation before us.

Along with this it was clear to the Cultural Council at an early stage of its investigation that we had a problem with regard to the racial connotation in the existing Act, since after all, culture is not, as the hon. the Minister indicated in his speech, merely a narrow concept relating to a particular ethnic identity; it also had a wider connotation with regard to culture in the form of art. Surely literary art, music, etc., are definitely not, as the hon. member for Virginia indicated, concepts intelligible to a particular people or to particular population groups alone, because appreciation can be expressed across the lines that divide peoples, appreciation of the literary arts, music, the plastic arts and other examples as well. As the Act is formulated in its present form, there is, consequently, a problem—this was a clear conclusion reached by the Cultural Council—because of the strong exclusive racial connotation contained therein.

Moreover, it was also clear to the National Cultural Council that there was a constant need at all times—in this regard we do not disagree with the hon. member for Germiston District—for differentiated culture promotion within each group context. Nobody need be ashamed that this is a fact. Consequently provision is in fact being made within the possibilities of the Bill for this to be exercised.

I should like to touch on another point which the Cutural Council came to realize: it is not the function of the State to pursue culture; it can only create the possibilities in which culture can be pursued. It can create those possibilities only by means of an infrastructure such as a regional office capable of rendering a particular service or it can make finances available rendering it possible for culture to be pursued through a particular organization, voluntary or otherwise. It is definitely not the function of the State to pursue culture.

The existing Act on the Statute Book presents us with the problem that even the definition of “National Cultural Council” creates the impression that the State is trying to pursue culture on its own, whereas it cannot in any way be the function of the State to do so: that function is merely to provide the opportunities for the fastening of culture.

In conclusion I contend that not only will the delegation of the functions and powers of the existing Cultural Council to regional councils be to the good of the fostering of culture in general, it is also in agreement with the whole idea of the devolution of decision-making. In this way it will be possible to make provision for decisions concerning a subject which is near to our hearts, too, to be taken more expeditiously and on the spot. At present too many of these decisions—even when it comes to the allocation of funds—are not really high-level decisions. Indeed, it is necessary to go to Pretoria, where a National Cultural Council can consider these things once a year. Accordingly justice is being done in respect of the devolution of power in this regard.

For these reasons I gladly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg West must please forgive me if I do not directly follow up on what he had to say, though in large measure, of course, we agree with the standpoints he adopted.

The Bill before the House today is a measure consolidating previous legislation. Essentially the principles involved are the same, but with one very important difference. For the first time the National Cultural Council, and the legislation in terms of which it is to be operated, is to make provision, on an equal basis, for the promotion of the cultural artefacts of other groups in South Africa as well as overseas. By lending statutory recognition to it, it is not only given substance, but one also allows for funds to be expended on the promotion and development of cultures other than the White culture in South Africa. This is, of course, one of the magnificent assets of a plural society, a multicultural society such as we have in South Africa. We really are like a diamond that has been cut into many facets. Each facet of the diamond sparkles in the light and provides delight to mankind. So in our multicultural society it is right, we believe, for us now to create the opportunities and facilities for the equal promotion of all the different cultures in South Africa. We have such a rich diversity of cultures that it really is a shame that we have not given equal priority to the other cultures in years past. At least we have now come to the point of recognizing this, and our intention is now to give substance to this objective.

The interesting questions one has to ask about a Bill such as this is whether it is, in fact, necessary to have a cultural council, whether it is necessary to promote culture locally and overseas and what is typically South African culture. I do not think there are many hon. members in this House who would disagree with the need for the promotion of South African culture locally and overseas, because culture—in its widest definition—is the one aspect that separates civilized man from uncivilized man. Cultural artefacts and expressions of culture are those things which are designed to soothe the soul of man and enhance the quality of life on this earth to a far greater extent than if we were merely drawers of water and hewers of wood. We believe that it is absolutely essential that the citizens of South Africa should be afforded a greater opportunity of making contact with their own and other people’s cultural artefacts, e.g. music, painting, sculpture and all the other expressions of man’s need to realize himself in some or other art-form. I do not think there is any doubt about that within the boundaries of South Africa.

Then we come to the question of whether we should promote our culture overseas. I believe that one of the finest ways to reach the hearts of men and women is to show them the beautiful side of humanity in South Africa. That expression is to be found in music, painting and the other cultural art-forms that we have. That is something that is universal to mankind throughout the world, and we can all find a considerable amount of joy and appreciation in the expression of another man’s culture in some or other art-form.

It is interesting that the PFP decided to support this Bill today. We find it very interesting indeed, because now they have given tacit consent and recognition to the fact of the ethnicity and cultural diversity in South Africa. The hon. member for Bryanston went to great lengths to read out parts of what I would call a Grimm’s fairy-tale, but which is in fact a booklet on their policy today, to prove that they had made contact with the words culture and ethnicity. The point I should like to make in respect of that party’s policy is that there is a considerable difference between paying lip-service to ethnicity and group rights and actually being able to incorporate them in a workable policy.

We have a good example here in the PFP where we have Afrikaners and others all grouped together.

I shall come back to a good example of PFP policy in a moment. Before I deal with PFP policy in respect of culture, I should like to point out to hon. members of the official Opposition that it is impossible and immoral for one group to pretend that it can promote and develop the culture of another group. I think that the hon. member for Bryanston and his colleagues will agree that this is a function that must in fact be devolved to the different cultural groups. I am sure he would not put himself up as an expert on Indian culture. Of course he would not. Nor would he expect an Indian or a Zulu to pretend to know and be able to develop his culture. Therefore here the official Opposition have given tacit recognition to group differentiation, which is the reality, and the beauty, of a plural society.

Now that the PFP have made that admission, let me add that their lip-service to group diversity and group rights is shown to be only lip-service in that booklet of theirs, because what did they do when they signed the Buthelezi Commission’s report? That is when the truth came out of what their interpretation is of group rights.

That was not about culture.

No, of course it was not about culture. It was about the transfer of power from one group to another. That is what it was about.

Do you want to retain it in White hands? [Interjections.]

When the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke earlier today on another subject, I wanted to ask him the question—he would not give me the opportunity to do so—whether he agreed with the standpoint of the hon. member for Sea Point in respect of what he agreed to in the Buthelezi Commission. [Interjections.] He does agree. Therefore the PFP’s idea of culture and groups is a transfer of power from one group to another. [Interjections.] Hon. members will remember that the formula accepted at Lancaster House for the transfer of power from the White minority in Rhodesia to a Black majority in Zimbabwe was based four-square on PFP policy.

Yes, that is the“miracle of reconciliation”.

There was minority over-representation, a Bill of Rights and proportional representation—now it is called a miracle of reconciliation by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The results are there to be seen. The purest form of the application of PFP policy is to be seen in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether there was not in that Rhodesian constitution a group-area basis?

There was tacit recognition given to the fact that certain de facto group areas existed. I do not know why the hon. member asks about group areas. It might be interesting to know why he does.

You say it is PFP policy, but 50% of the country was set aside for Blacks only.

I think the hon. member will recognize that, when there is a transfer of power, one has to accept the de facto position to start with. I mean, one cannot start with group areas not being there if one wants to change group areas. The hon. member will remember what has happened to the agricultural land in the White highlands of Rhodesia. They have become the biggest squatter camps in Southern Africa. That is what is happening with the transfer of power. I do not know why the hon. member asked that question. We know that they do not believe in group rights. We know that they believe that the Bill of Rights should be used to force integration on the society they propose for the future. However, we shall not waste too much time on the PFP and their policy, because we all know that that will end up in disaster in a plural society such as we have in South Africa.

The hon. member for Bryanston did have a certain amount of objection to the fact that the Minister has the power to appoint or approve members of the regional council. He had great objection to this. I should like to point out to the hon. member that this is the difference in principle between his party and ours. This has been discussed on many occasions and in particular at the time of the discussion on the debate on the Vista University Bill—the hon. member Prof. Olivier and I served on that Select Committee— when we discussed the principle of ministerial ability to appoint people which revolved around the fact that public money approved by this Parliament was to be used. Unlike the PFP we believe if public money is approved in this House for utilization under a Minister’s portfolio, that Minister must carry responsibility for the expenditure of those funds because he is responsible for reporting back to Parliament. If the Minister is responsible for the expenditure of those funds then surely it is logical and good management practice that he should have a say over the people who are going to be appointed to the regional council and who indirectly will be responsible for this expenditure. Therefore the principle which we follow in this party is that when there is expenditure of State funds the Minister must be accountable and therefore also responsible. If there were no State funds involved then we could agree with the hon. member that maybe the Minister should not have the power to appoint all the members, or approve them, at regional council level. I do not know whether the hon. member for Bryanston really believes that it is possible to divest the Minister of his responsibility and accountability to this House.

I should like to say that the hon. the Minister made a very interesting statement in his Second Reading speech when he said that the Bill would also form the basis on which, in the proposed new constitutional dispensation, the promotion of culture could be handled as a typical group responsibility by the respective chambers of Parliament. I contend that these are the first faint strains from a symphony of the new constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Here for the first time we have a Minister indicating that the new three-chamber constitutional system is going to be a reality. We can already hear the first distant notes of that new symphony which is going to be played in politics here in South Africa. We welcome that. It is well known that this party stands for group rights and cultural differentiation and that each group should have control over its own, intimate cultural and domestic affairs. Therefore we welcome the fact that this sort of legislation and responsibility will be passed on to the other chambers when the new constitution is actually implemented in South Africa.

That will be the day.

The hon. member for Rissik says: That will be the day. It is very interesting that the CP which recognizes ethnicity and cultural diversity should now want to abuse those institutions of society in order to try to retain the power in the hands of the minority.

Over myself, not over the other people.

But there are certain matters of common concern which one cannot escape and which cannot operate as islands in isolation from each other. The hon. member knows that there are certain cardinal factors which are of paramount importance which have to be discussed and decided at common and joint level. The hon. member must think of the responsibility for transportation, for defence, for foreign affairs and for economic planning. These are things which have to be decided jointly and therefore joint decision making will have to be part of their programme as well. [Interjections.]

The hon. member wants to tell us that they differ culturally from the average Coloured in South Africa. The hon. member for Germiston District, who spoke earlier on, identified the criteria of a culture. She identified language, family relationship, marriage relationship, religion and language. The whole value system was identified by the hon. member for Germiston District. I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik and his colleagues what the indigenous language of the Coloured community of South Africa is. It is Afrikaans.

Are you an Australian?

Do not worry about Australia. We are talking about South Africa and the Coloureds. What is the religion of the majority of the Coloureds? It is identical to that of the Whites in South Africa. Among the Coloureds are Catholics, Apostolics, Baptists, Presbyterians, some Anglicans, members of the Dutch Reformed Church and members of the Hervormde Kerk as well. They have identical religious affiliations to ourselves. Their family relationships are monogamous. They share exactly the same value systems. There is no justification to differentiate between the Coloureds and the Whites of South Africa. There is no justification for total political separation.

When it comes to the Indian community, maybe one could say with a reasonable degree of certainty that there are certain items between the Indian community’s culture and the White community’s culture which set them apart. Religion certainly, language certainly and family structure to a certain extent as well. Therefore we believe that the fairest and most just society which can be developed in South Africa must recognize cultural diversity. However, we must not use group rights to reject people but rather integrate them into a single political structure in South Africa with joint decision making on matters of common concern and personal control over domestic affairs.

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

If it is an intelligent one, yes.

The hon. member has just made out a case for Coloureds who speak Afrikaans and who belong, for instance, to the Christian religion to be included in the same political structure. What about the Blacks who already speak English and who are already Christians who already outnumber the Whites who speak English? Why does he not want to include those Blacks within the same structure?

The hon. member for Greytown is a very observant member of the House because that in fact is our policy. I am glad he asked the question because it gives me an opportunity to explain our policy legitimately. I am not going to read it out of a book because I know it out of my head. I should like to tell the hon. member, as I have said so many times in this House, that the dividing line in South Africa for our future, if it is to be a safe, secure, prosperous and peaceful future, is not between groups on the basis of the colour of their skin. It is to do with the culture and the value system which they support. There are two macro value systems in South Africa which nobody can deny. On the one hand there are those people who believe in democracy and the capitalist private free enterprise system. The two go together. On the other hand there is the other macro value system which consists of people who believe essentially in a traditional form of tribal consensus government attached to and supported by a social and communal economic structure. The tragedy of the decolonization of Africa has been that there has been a transfer of power back to the majority group who do not believe in democracy and private free enterprise. That has been the tortuous route taken by all decolonized groups. The original colonial power forced onto them democracy and private free enterprise before their culture was ready for the adoption of that value system.

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

I am still answering his first one, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] As the hon. member did not know it was our policy I am describing it to him. I want to come now to the gravamen of the answer to the question of the hon. member for Greytown. We believe that the majority of Whites believe in democracy and private free enterprise. We believe that the majority of Coloureds believe in it and that the majority of Indian South Africans believe in democracy and private free enterprise. And there are Blacks living outside the homelands of South Africa who are also totally committed to democracy and private free enterprise as a value system. In common language they are known as detribalized and Westernized Blacks.

And what about the Blacks inside the homelands?

One question at a time, please. Hon. members always want to rush for the next one before they have received an answer to the first one. We believe that there could be a four-chamber system in the new constitution, not a three-chamber system. One for the Coloureds, one for the Indians, one for the Whites and one for those Blacks who believe in democracy and private free enterprise.

Then the 4:2:1 ratio goes by the board.

Then there must be a fifth chamber which will be our federal Parliament in which there will be joint decision making, joint deliberation and joint debate on matters of common concern.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

I was replying to the hon. member’s question, Sir. Each group will have the right to implement a Bill similar to this. This was stated by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech. We believe that is very important because the cultural affairs of a group belongs to that group and no one else can pretend to understand or accept responsibility for promoting that group’s culture.

Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that we welcome the fact that in terms of this Bill the hon. the Minister and the regional councils will, in terms of clause 2(1)(b)(vi), be able to provide such other services as may be deemed necessary or expedient to subsidize or finance the provision of services by any person. Sir, I believe this is a very important provision. Recently in Natal we had the experience where the orchestra of the Durban city council had to be liquidated due to a lack of financial facilities to support it. The Natal Provincial Administration has since seen fit to make a grant to the city council and the council is now in the process of reconstituting the orchestra. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to pay particular attention, in allocating funds in terms of the powers given to him in this Bill, to the development and extension of our symphonic orchestras in South Africa. That is a social responsibility of the State. Orchestras cannot be run on a basis of pure profitability. Symphony orchestras are a heritage and the Government is the custodian of that heritage. As such the Government must see to it that sufficient funds are allocated to all the larger cities in South Africa in order to enable them to maintain a symphony orchestra of international standards. So I appeal to the hon. the Minister to use this Bill to its greatest extent to ensure that we avoid the debacle which we experienced in Natal through the Durban city council having to liquidate its symphony orchestra. It will never be possible to rebuild that orchestra in its previous character. Its musicians, who have been developed and employed over years in Durban, have dispersed to the four corners of the earth. So now we have to rebuild that orchestra afresh. Let me say that I believe it will be a good one, but the lack of continuity has cost us dearly in terms of musical capability in that area.

Was it not a case of local option?

No, one of no funds! Let me appeal again to the hon. the Minister not to take the view that a symphony orchestra should be a profitable undertaking. On the contrary. It is the social responsibility of the Government to ensure that there are sufficient funds to provide this type of facility.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we, as I think the hon. the Minister would have gathered, will be supporting the Bill in all its stages. At the same time I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that when it comes to appointing members to the regional councils he should consult the existing organizations, voluntary and otherwise, participating in the cultural activities in a particular area. There is a large number of this type of organization, people with tremendous experience and expertise. I believe that the hon. the Minister, knowing him as I do, will make a point of it to see that he will consult with such people at regional and local level before he makes any appointments. The reason for asking this is that if one wants to motivate people to participate in these regional councils then one must take people from the local community to do the promotion. To bring in an individual from one area and make him responsible for cultural promotion in another area is anathema to most people. It does not work in practice. One must use local people with an interest in the local community, as the PFP discovered when they sent their erstwhile member for Orange Grove to Durban North to fight an election.

Mr. Speaker, every population group, every person, has within his being a rhythm which is faithful to his own blood. This is true. This is inalienable. When we observe the tribal dances of the Black mine-workers, when we watch them dancing, we notice the natural authenticity issuing from it. If we could camouflage the hon. member for Bryanston, if we could clothe him in the war attire of some Black tribe or another, and bedeck him with a few tassels … [Interjections.] … and could let him take part in such a war-dance …

One could still see at once that it was he! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if my supporters around me would just be a little quieter, I could come to the Bill. [Interjections.] I shall come to the Bill in a moment. However, suppose we made the hon. member for Bryanston a member of such a group of war-dancers. He could pick up his knees and tread water and kick up as much dust as he wished; we would still know that it was he. We would spot him at once. We would see that he was dancing out of step. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I could also give you another example. Supposing we were to take the Ipi Tombi group—and many of us have seen and heard them—and we put in their place the most wonderful choir … I do not wish to come to the South now; I shall confine myself to the Tukkie Choir … [Interjections.] Well, we could make it the choir of the University of Stellenbosch, or even the Alabama choir. Whatever other group we allowed to perform the music of Ipi Tombi, however soothing and beautiful it sounded, the authenticity, the spirit and the rhythm which is so moving about the Ipi Tombi group, would not find expression, would not be interpreted as it would by the Ipi Tombi group itself. Suppose we took the hon. member for Germiston District and we placed her in the Ipi Tombi group … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, no matter how skilfully she moved her body, the first step she executed would give her away and we would say: “Bessie, you are out!” [Interjections.]

However, I can say with true conviction that if we were to paint the hon. member for Bryanston, and then place him in the front row of a troupe of Cape Coons, it would only mean one thing. He would be “number one”. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member for Standerton not stepping rather wide of the mark now? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the fine speech of the hon. member for Durban North was poor in places as a result of other hon. members interrupting him repeatedly. However, the hon. member singled out one particular aspect of this legislation. He emphasized it, and I wish to express my appreciation for this. He said that no population group, however small or large, could promote its culture with the aid of mercenaries. Whatever component of its cultural life may be affected, it cannot promote its own culture with the help of mercenaries from another nation. However, what is possible— and the hon. member, as well as the hon. members for Virginia and Johannesburg West referred to this—is that we, with our rich diversity of communities in this exceptional country, can enrich one another; not contaminate, liberalize, nor enter into a morbid conspiracy with one another—and this is apparently what is making the hon. members of the CP so afraid and hesitant— but enrich one another in the full sense of the word. Why should we, as the peoples of the southernmost point of Africa, peoples in our own right, in a free country with the free blue sky above us, constantly try to enrich ourselves through a weary Europe. We are young peoples, peoples who are alive, peoples with a new culture and with languages which have been developed here in our own country. We should have the depth of conscience and feeling to be able to appreciate this. We who from day to day experience these things together with the other peoples in this country, who may enjoy the enrichment of them, must, in fact, have the capacity to enjoy them.

Now I wish to confine myself to the Bill itself, and point out certain aspects of it. I wish to place it within the framework of the HSRC’s report on the education structures. By the way, I wish to say to the hon. member for Germiston district that she need not be so concerned. She should read this little blue supplement to that report. In moulding the youth, culture is a complete activity in shaping a being, which one can never detach from one’s education. Be sure to tell that to the people in Soutpansberg and Waterberg.

The first aspect of the legislation I wish to refer to and in which a desire has been expressed, is the decentralization of functions and powers, the decentralization to the regions, to the people. Why? In my opinion there are two aspects within the framework of this legislation which I wish to refer to in this regard. One must involve the adult, the parent, in the moulding of the youth—in respect of education in particular—whether it be a Black, a Coloured, an Asian or a White. This is their task and it finds expression in this measure. This must be done by way of non-formal education. Why do we want him to be involved? Because we wish to transmit to the youth the riches which exist in society. Apart from the enjoyment of the participants in society, and the utilization of the ability in society, it is good for the youth to have a share in it. That is why the plea is being made here for our schools and existing facilities to be used for other purposes. In the case of some children, there is the problem of a restrictive environment, which impedes normal growth and development. I should like to refer in this regard, to a paragraph in the 1981 HSRC report on the provision of education in the RSA. Paragraph 3 on page 31 states the following—

Therefore one can see that there is a deeper meaning in this legislation. Together with our children, we must make contact with the developing situation and changing circumstances, so that they may get into the rhythm and tempo of development.

There is a second aspect I wish to refer to. In a particular community there is an artist who is also a farmer. This man has a special talent. I could tell hon. members of the successes which this man has attained. He is also a fantastic teacher. That man has the desire to make contact with people so that he may share with them the gift he has. In the immediate vicinity of his farm is a farm school, a school with a staff of two. He gives art lessons to the children and the ladies of the community. A fee is paid which is donated to the school to supplement the school fund. Through these activities, the utilization of the potential of the environment, he encourages people to share that wonderful talent. This is an enrichment of the community. By way of the regional councils provided for in clause 3, bodies will be established so that there may be State aid in order to carry out those functions in a meaningful way.

This legislation is something special. It eliminates a series of deficiencies, as the hon. the Minister indicated in his introductory speech. It affords us the opportunity to enrich our community. It affords us the opportunity of extending parental involvement. I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Standerton, with his infectious enthusiasm. As on other occasions, I think most of us listened with a great deal of appreciation to what he had to say and to the depth and intensity of feeling he displayed. I do not always agree with the hon. member, but I can find little fault with his speech this afternoon.

Before I come back to the Bill as such, I wish to comment on some of the speeches made on the Bill in this House this afternoon. I commence with the speech of the hon. member for Durban North. He is a thinking, intelligent person, and we have come to know him as such; we appreciate this. However, at times the hon. member is guilty of a lack of logic which, to me, is quite incomprehensible. Allow me to illustrate this in a concrete way with reference to what happened this afternoon.

The hon. member spoke about the Buthelezi report and said that the PFP—I do not wish to talk party politics, but rather wish to confine myself to cultural diversity—merely pays lip-service to this principle, for what has happened? While on the one hand the PFP recognizes the diversity, the plurality, the ethnicity and the cultural diversity, it forgets about these in the political sphere. This is his view.

Yes.

What did the hon. member for Durban North do then? In his attack on the CP, he proved that the Coloureds were not, in fact, a separate group. The Coloured has no separate identity; he is not a separate entity—I agree with this—but despite the fact that he indicated that the Coloured does not, in fact, differ from the Whites culturally and ethnically, the hon. member specifically wishes to place him in a different chamber. He therefore wishes to separate him politically. I am merely pointing this out as a result of the complete lack of logic which I observe on the part of the hon. member from time to time; more often, unfortunately, than I expect of him. [Interjections.]

If it is, in fact, the case that the proposals of the NRP also recognize ethnicity, how can they speak of a fourth chamber for all Blacks? How can they speak of one chamber for Indians? This is also my question to hon. members of the NP. We have at least two major ethnic groups among the Indian community, the Hindus and the Moslems. This is the kind of problem I have when I try to think logically and rationally about these matters. Perhaps I could be told that politics cannot be logical and rational, but then we must not pretend to approach these matters in a logical and rational manner.

But practice compels one to adopt a somewhat broader view.

But then we should say that we are doing so for practical purposes and should not present it in a frame of logic and reason.

After all, the Afrikaans-speaking people and the English-speaking people are here together.

Precisely. This is the further point I wish to make. Despite the fact that in certain spheres we are dealing with two separate cultural groups, Afrikaans and English, we throw them together in the same political system. That is why I wish to make another point which also relates to the Bill. If, in fact, the Coloureds are not a separate cultural group, on what basis can the hon. the Minister of National Education say in his Bill—this is the implication, since he has linked all this to the proposed tricameral system—that as far as these groups are concerned, each one of the chambers will deal with the particular culture of the group concerned? I repeat: There is no reason for this, since in cultural terms, the Coloured cannot, in fact, be distinguished from the Whites. I shall come back to this later.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to comment briefly on the speech of the hon. member for Germiston District. I shall not go into her definition of culture. A great deal of it is true.

It is a good definition.

Allow me to say at the outset that I have difficulty with the terminology which the hon. member used. Time and time again she used the terms “group”, “people” and “race” in such a way that it really was not clear to me what she was trying to say. She spoke about ethnic groups which had their own culture. She said that culture should remain group-orientated. Here I again have a problem. We have here an English-speaking and an Afrikaans-speaking cultural group. These are certainly separate cultural groups, but at the same time there is a considerable communality of culture which these two groups enjoy and share. If we look at the work of the Transvaal Performing Arts Board and at Capab, we see that there is no differentiation on the basis of ethnicity, or whatever. I wish to say to the hon. member for Germiston District that she is doing herself and the Afrikaner an injustice when she says that the Culture we have here only originated three and a half centuries ago. Not only did we bring that culture with us—I am referring to our ancestors—but a great deal of the culture in the Western world today is, in fact, our culture as well. While we all recognize that the Afrikaner has his own culture, I just wish to say that we cannot see the Afrikaans cultural group solely in terms of those particular and special creative works which can only be ascribed to the Afrikaner. We could consider what has been created by the Afrikaner, for example and Anton van Wouw, a Van Wyk Louw …

A Hendrik Verwoerd.

I am speaking of cultural works and not about politicians.

Is politics not part of culture?

If we speak about the works of a Le Roux, a Breytenbach and so many other Afrikaners, I wish to say that these embody values which extend far beyond the Afrikaner community alone. They extend far beyond the borders of our country. Those works have a quality which, indeed, is not timebound and is certainly not limited as regards place or ethnic context. Therefore, in my honest opinion, the hon. member for Germiston District sees culture in far too limited a sense.

I now come to the hon. member for Virginia. I have a great deal of respect for him. However, he did my colleague an injustice by commencing his speech with the statement that the hon. member for Bryanston wanted to make politics out of this. Allow me to say at the outset that what politics is and what it is not, what is permissible and what is not, is a very relative matter in this House. The hon. the Minister himself said that he wanted to link these forms of culture to the various chambers in the tricameral system which is going to be established.