Mr. Chairman, the Transkei is to receive its independence on 26 October, and as that day approaches, so does the concern grow of the non-Transkeians living there as to their future. What must be borne in mind at all times is that the non-Transkeians living there are not in the same position as the other owners of property who are negotiating with the Trust for the purchase of their land, because the Transkei will become an independent, sovereign State. It is true that they may, subject to certain qualifications, apply for Transkeian citizenship, but what about those who do not choose to live in a foreign State, those who feel apprehension about their future security, economic and physical, those who have not sought to lose the protection of their father-land? They live at present in absolute ignorance of their lot, and some fear for the exuberance of the young Black Transkeians, the more volatile and enthusiastic members of the race, as the day of independence approaches.

There are signs of increasing crime and violence in the towns, and because of the uncertainty as to when White properties are to be taken over, there is a feeling among some of the Blacks that when independence comes, all properties will be handed over to them. This results in some areas of unpleasantness and race friction.

The fact of independence is not something new, something which has been thrust upon the Government overnight. It has been planned since 1963. We have over the years sought to get from this Government details of what will happen and what will be the position of non-Transkeians in that area, but we have failed to get replies.

It was thought at first that all those who wished to leave the Transkei would be able to do so, but now we find that that is in fact not so. They cannot simply walk out of their businesses or their homes as refugees, relying on charity and succour from others. If they leave, they want to leave on their own steam. They want to be able to establish themselves elsewhere, if they are young enough to do so. If they are too old to do that, they want to be able to retire on the proceeds of their sweat and labour over the years. They cannot, however, do that unless they are able to dispose of their assets. They find themselves in the position that there is no free market for them. They are in fact bound to rely on the Government which is the only real purchaser of their property.

In 1964 this Government issued a White Paper in which it undertook to compensate those who wished to leave the Transkei, but unfortunately and very unjustly the Government applied a priority rule to those who wished to leave. While it was expected that the Government would make ample funds available to buy out those who wished to leave, we find that in this year, the most vital year, these funds have been reduced. Less has been made available than was made available last year. R3,56 million has been set aside this year as against at least R4 million last year. I say “at least R4 million ” because when we discussed the additional appropriation earlier this session the Minister told us that, whereas R25 million had been set aside to buy land for the Trust, the Government had in fact spent an extra R30 million, i.e. R50 million in all, and in reply to interjections, he said that Port St. Johns fell under this payment. I am therefore not certain exactly how much was paid out for properties in the Transkei, although R4 million was set aside. I must say, in passing, that the provision of R30 million this year for purchases outside the Transkei, is infinitesimal. It certainly cannot hope to meet the claims which will be made on the Government.

The provision of R3,5 million in this budget for the Transkei was in itself a shock, but what is worse is the advice which has now been received in the Transkei from the Adjustment Committee, which is the organization responsible for compensating those in the Transkei. I quote from a letter received in this connection—

That in fact means that no more properties can be bought in this financial year. Imagine the feelings of the people there, Sir, when they realize that R2 million was paid out last year to two speculators at Port St. Johns. They also see the millions being spent on prestige buildings for ideological purposes in the Transkei, and they see the millions being wasted because of a crash building programme to get these buildings completed by 26 October.

I do not think the Minister appreciates the frustrations and the hardships facing non-Transkeians. He must, or should, know that once properties are zoned for Black occupation—and the whole of the Transkei has now been zoned except for a residential area in Umtata—new leases or the renewal of leases in respect of businesses carried on in zoned premises cannot be allowed without a permit either from the Minister or from the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development. Leases are now expiring and permits must be obtained for new ones or for renewals to Whites, but these permits are not always granted. The hon. the Minister will know of a case in connection with which I saw him personally. There was an elderly lady who wished to lease a vacant building to a businessman who is carrying on business in premises adjoining hers. However, the permit was refused and my information is that had it been allowed and had the business expanded, the Government would have been forced to pay out more in goodwill when the tenant offered his place for sale. The elderly lady now sits there with vacant premises which she can let, but is not allowed to. Nevertheless she is liable for bond interest and rates on the property. She cannot sell either because the Government does not have the funds to buy.

What is even more disconcerting than this, however, is the fact that it is not only the hon. the Minister and the Secretary for Bantu Administration who decide whether the nature of a business can be changed or whether there can be leases of business premises. Applications for alterations to leases or changes of occupation have to be submitted first to the Department of the Interior of the Transkeian Government, and I am told that these applications are considered by the Transkeian Cabinet. At this time the hon. the Minister may, in fact, be prepared to overrule the recommendations of the Transkeian Government, but after 26 October he will not be allowed to do so.

Therefore these people will be at the mercy of the Transkeian Government. After independence we do not know what laws may be introduced by the Transkeian Government and how owners’ rights might be affected. What guarantee have we that the example set in the northern territories by the nationalization of businesses will not be followed in the Transkei? In addition, how are owners to know that when they sell their properties the Transkeian Government may not apply exchange control regulations and so prohibit them from getting their money out of the Transkei?

There may be guarantees given by the present Government of the Transkei, but no one knows how long the present Chief Minister will hold that position. As far as guarantees given by our Government are concerned, those persons remember what happened in Port St. John when reliance was placed on the word of Nationalist politicians.

What the people want is certainty; they want to know that they can go when they want to go. Some suspect that this Government has deliberately cut the funds available for compensation this year in order to ensure that the Whites will remain in the territory in order to help in the administration of that territory.

Nonsense!

An hon. member says that is nonsense. However, take the Whites out of that territory and see what will happen. This Government knows it cannot afford to have them all go at once.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to afford the hon. member for Griqualand East the opportunity to finish his speech.

Thank you. They are, in fact, captives. I am thinking, in particular, of the pensioners in Port St. Johns, who settled there on the strength of Government assurances. This uncertainty will also counteract development in the Transkei. I know of a baker who has a big business. He tells me he cannot cope with the orders he is getting at present, especially because of the failure of the maize crop in the Transkei this year. However, he cannot expand. He needs to spend another R70 000 on new ovens, but he is afraid to do so because he does not know when he will get his money back, whether he will be able to sell his property or whether he will be compensated by the Government. This is a serious matter because these people must have food. I give this as a good example of development that may be delayed as a result of Government policy.

Yesterday the hon. member for Vryheid said, I think, that R1 000 million was required to buy all the land set aside in these areas. The Transkeians, I want to point out, are in a different position, as I have said before, from others who may be affected by land purchases. Although I am very interested in the fate of those others outside the Transkei, since I have some in my constituency as well and am at present negotiating with the hon. the Deputy Minister on their position, I am now only dealing with the position of the Transkeians themselves.

I want the hon. the Minister to take a look at what is involved. The municipal values of properties in Umtata, Port St. Johns, Butterworth, Idutywa and Engcobo stand at about R15 700 000. However, these valuations were made years ago and bear no relation to the present value of properties, especially in the light of prices now being paid in Umtata. If we take the Port St. Johns values as a basis, on the hon. the Minister’s own calculations, then the values should obviously be higher. It has been estimated that if we take these towns and also the other villages in which there is still property to be purchased by the Government and also about 100 traders who are still in business, the amount involved could be about R75 million. What hope do these owners have of being paid within a reasonable time at the present rate at which funds are allocated?

I want to put some specific questions to the hon. the Minister. I want him to answer them. When they were put previously, we did not get a reply. (1) Is only R3,56 million to be made available to the Transkei? Has the full amount been spent already, as has been announced by the adjustment committee? If not, how much is available for the purchase of properties during the current financial year? If the full amount has been spent, what is to happen to people in urgent need, those cases which the adjustment committee admits are urgent priority cases? (2) What is the instalment plan of purchase mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his budget speech and will it apply in the Transkei? (3) Has the Government considered the UP’s proposals made last year when we discussed released areas?

I refer to proposals in regard to issuing negotiable instruments providing for depreciation in currency if cash to pay out cannot be found. (4) Which body or authority will be responsible for compensating the Whites and Coloureds after independence? (5) What will be the procedure and will there be a priority list?

There is another important matter which I want to raise. I refer to the question of citizenship, firstly in regard to the Blacks who live outside the Transkei and, secondly, in regard to the Whites living inside the Transkei. The hon. the Minister and the Chief Minister of the Transkei have a difference of opinion as to what the position is. I am not going to go into that now since the hon. member for Umhlatuzana did it very well yesterday and we are awaiting the hon. the Minister’s reply to the questions raised by him. I shall therefore not go into that now. However, this is not something of little importance; it can be very serious.

If the hon. the Minister is correct in his interpretation as to whose citizens they will be, we shall have more than a million foreign Transkeians living in South Africa. What will their position be? Will they be treated differently …

Why do you anticipate matters?

Will they be treated differently from the Japanese? I am asking these questions because we want to know. I got no reply, but I want to know what the position is because I am interested in the matter.

Will those Transkeians be considered as foreigners? This question is important in so far as the Whites are concerned who live in the Transkei, because any dispute or unpleasantness in the Republic may have a reaction and repercussions in the Transkei. It is high time this House is told what the Government envisages. I raised this question during the Second Reading debate, but did not receive a reply.

What about the citizenship of the Whites and the Coloureds living in the Transkei? They cannot leave, except with the assistance of the Government unless they make great sacrifices.

The Transkei Government may lay restrictions on non-Transkei citizens and this is what they fear. Will the Government allow dual citizenship? After all, there is a very good precedent for it. The British did it when they had colonies and British subjects were living outside Britain. I think the least this Government can do is to show that degree of mercy to non-Transkeians who will be living in the Transkei and allow them dual citizenship. As far as they are concerned it is a case of Hobson’s choice—they have no choice because they have to be there.

They are worried about the restrictions and obligations which the Transkei Government may place upon non-Transkeians. I want to know whether there can be a restriction placed upon the amount of money which an individual will be allowed to take out of the country. Can there be a fixing of interest rates for banks and financial institutions? Will they be subject to non-residents shareholders tax? Can the Transkei Government impose taxes on them? They want these answers and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what the arrangements with the Transkei Government will be.

On what basis will future payments be made to the Transkei by this Government in terms of section 52 of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, and also for services? I refer to the amounts set out in pages 6-17 and 6-21 of the publication setting out the estimate of the expenditure to be defrayed from State Revenue Account. In respect of one account R36 million is to be paid this year as against R9 million last year, and in respect of another, R96 million this year as against R66 million last year. In total, therefore, an amount of R132 million is to be spent this year as against R75 million last year. Has the basis of these payments been agreed upon or how will the needs of the Transkei be assessed after independence?

I have not mentioned the salaries of seconded officials which are reflected in the budget. I assume those officials will all receive allowances as is the case at present. However, what about the hospitals and schools? According to Chief Kaiser Matanzima there will be private hospitals and private schools for Whites. I take it that the teachers and nurses concerned will not be seconded to the Transkeian Government because these institutions will be run from South Africa. These teachers and nurses want to know whether they will also receive the sort of allowances that will be paid to seconded officials.

We note that Chief Kaiser Matanzima is still coming with claims to further land. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister will be prepared to answer these questions, but the chief has claimed land right up to Port Shepstone. In an interview he has said that he will continue to make these claims. Cannot the hon. the Minister settle once and for all with the chief minister what land he is to get, because this merely causes unrest. Recently Chief George Matanzima made a statement that the Transkei would annex the Ciskei and that the corridor would go. When Chief Kaiser Matanzima was interviewed just the other day—I have the report here dated 24 April— he was asked whether he was thinking of annexing the Ciskei. According to the report, he replied—

Can the hon. the Minister enlighten us as to what the chief means by this?

Early in February a report appeared in the paper which stated that this Minister is to be the chairman of the committee appointed to go into the removal of statutory discrimination. We are very interested to know what is happening about that committee. According to a report of an interview with him, he said that the report of that committee was imminent. I want to know whether the report has been completed yet. Can the hon. the Minister tell us what is to happen about discrimination?

Sir, I see my time is up. My final plea to the hon. the Minister is that he should answer all the questions I have asked with regard to the Transkei. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Griqualand East will excuse me if I do not deal with his arguments, because I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to all of them. I should like to refer to a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Jeppe before the adjournment of the debate yesterday.

*Mr. Chairman, before I deal with that matter would you allow me as a person who has worked with the hon. the Minister for a very long time and learnt to know him intimately, briefly to congratulate the hon. the Minister in this, the tenth year in which he has been occupying this office on all the milestones he erected along the way. While working with him, I was impressed not only by his enthusiasm and dedication, but also particularly by the absolute integrity of the man, M. C. Botha. In the world in which we are living, it is also necessary sometimes to emphasize the characteristic of integrity. I recall that a man who was later involved in a major fraud scandal, arrived at the office on one occasion with a gift and that the Minister’s instruction was that that gift should be returned at once.

In connection with the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe, I specifically want to refer to his remark that relations between White and Black in the urban areas are deteriorating as a result of many circumstances. He used the word “deteriorating”. This is also the attitude we have from other hon. members of the Opposition in season and out of season. They refer to unsatisfactory conditions in respect of housing and education and to many other matters and then they blame the Government for these. I had the privilege to read a very interesting book about the American negro. It is a very recent edition because it appeared in 1975. I am referring to the book Black Americans written by Prof. Alphonso Pinkney. This man is an expert on the negro in America and conditions prevailing there. Mr. Chairman, he says: “Relations between Black and White Americans have never been amicable, but at few points in history have they been characterized by greater strain than they are at the present time.” When we speak about the relations between White and Black, in urban areas as well, it is important that we should bear in mind that those things for which they blame us, are phenomenons one finds throughout the world in urban areas. These phenomenons include unsatisfactory housing, education problems, problems with respect to influx and all the socio-economic problems related thereto. When considering the present political situation in South Africa, we note two outstanding factors. In the first place there is the fact that the White voters, as well as the non-Whites, accept neither the UP nor the PRP’s solution of their problems. The other outstanding truth is that the theory of the NP’s policy is not only accepted, but that most people also admit that it should be the ultimate solution, in spite of the practical problems which accompany it.

The position of the urban Bantu, especially his socio-economic circumstances, compels me reasonably to concede to the Opposition that considerable socio-economic backwardness does exist. In a certain sense one can call these evils, especially with respect to housing, education, general services, recreation, and so on. However, when one has made this confession, one is faced with the true problem i.e. how to deal with this problem. If we could only get it into the heads of the hon. the Opposition, especially into the head of the hon. member for Houghton, that these problems cannot be solved without money, a great deal of progress would be made. Regarding the question of the Bantu in urban areas, it is of cardinal importance we should consider where we stand in connection with the financing thereof in South Africa.

I am convinced in my heart that, if the urban Black man has to remain a poor appendage to a reasonably prosperous White community in South Africa, we shall have a condition which will become untenable in the long run. Therefore it is of basic importance that we, in accordance with the Government’s policy, shall do everything in our power to extend the development process of nations to socioeconomic spheres for the ethnic communities and for the Black community in our urban areas.

The Bantu Affairs Administration Boards which are responsible for dealing with all these matters, have to deal with an immense problem, i.e. a shortage of money. As far as the Bantu Administration Boards are concerned, we know that they are dependent upon a few main sources of income. Unfortunately their most important source of income at the moment is the sale of liquor. During the financial year 1974-’75 the total income of the 22 Bantu Administration Boards was R244 195 000. Of this an amount of R144 195 000 was derived from the sale of liquor. This means that 59,5% of the total income of the boards is obtained from the sale of liquor. As against that, 14,5% was derived from contributions by White employers, and 19,5% from contributions by the Bantu themselves.

This entails two major problems. If we want to develop the Bantu socio-economically, we have to have the capital. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister if it is not possible to have an in-depth investigation into the whole basis of the financing of Bantu administration in urban areas. The aim of such an investigation should be twofold. In the first place we must try and get away from depending so heavily on the sale of liquor in order to provide those services which have to be provided to the Bantu. In the second place we must try and get away from the idea that everything done for Blacks in urban areas has to be done by Whites. This means that the Blacks will have to make a greater contribution on their part. For instance, we can take cognizance of the position of the Bantu Administration Board at Port Natal. In that area alone the Bantu will spend R21,5 million this year on liquor, as against R5 million on housing. In the area of the Bantu Administration Board for Central Transvaal there is a deficit of R1,2 million for the provision of services this year.

However, there is a profit of R2,3 million on the sale of Bantu beer and a profit of R500 000 on the sale of White liquor. What is the position? The Bantu Affairs Administration Boards have limited sources of income. They either let the workers pay more by means of contributions—and this is not an easy procedure nor is it a fast one—or they let the Blacks pay more for services, so that those services can be economically financed. This is not so easy either because those hon. members who say “hear, hear ” when too much money is spent on liquor, are the same people who suggest to the Blacks in season and out of season that the high rentals they have to pay and the money they have to pay for services discriminate against them. I want to make the statement categorically here that the Blacks in South Africa in the urban complexes have progressed to such a level financially at this stage, that they are able to make a considerably larger contribution themselves towards their welfare in respect of housing and recreation facilities and services which have to be provided to them, for example streets, electricity and light and all the things about which the hon. member for Houghton has so much to say so often for the benefit of the World Press. Sir, if we now consider one aspect in Soweto, which she referred to, we find that the loss on recreation for the Bantu Affairs Administration Board amounts to R1,1 million annually while that board derives an income of R41 million from Bantu beer and the sale of liquor. The Market Research Bureau of Unisa conducted a survey and according to that survey which has been conducted in a few of the major urban centres, including Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, and so on, the cash spending pattern of Black household reveals that 38,9% goes for food and 12,5% for clothing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer briefly to a statement made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana yesterday afternoon when he said (p. X4)—

Sir, this statement is completely wrong. The hon. member argues like the man who had his appendix out because it was inflamed and now complains that the operation was a failure because an important component of his anatomy is not with him any longer.

*Sir, it was never meant that the policy of separate development alone should solve the problem in respect of the urban Bantu. The hon. member forgets that the emphasis must also fall on development. In the time at my disposal I would simply like to refer to the phenomenal development which has taken place over the past 15 years in respect of our homelands. It can be said quite rightly that the development of the homelands in South Africa was definitely the largest socio-economic aid programme ever tackled in Africa. Indeed, if we interpret it in terms of the contribution of the tax-payer per capita in South Africa, it is the largest aid programme in the wide world. If we compare it with what UNO spent in the decade 1962 to 1972 in 38 developing countries, we see that it was R260 million. South Africa spent R486 million in the same period—twice as much—on its developing homelands. Where a subsistence economy existed earlier in our homelands, today we have scientific farming methods in the homelands, thousands of kilometres of contour banks which have been made, 5 000 dams which have been built in the past 15 year, 40 000 km of roads, 132 000 km of fences; several agricultural and technical high schools have been erected; 10 000 ha of land has been placed under irrigation, there are citrus, coffee, sugar, sisal and tea plantations and mines are being developed there. In this period as well, no less than 150 towns have been founded in our homelands. In addition to this, we must add that the BIC, in the form of investments it made in the homelands, contributed an amount of R89,4 million. We know that this period of development was divided into five-year plans, and whereas only R107 million was spent in the first five years, this increased to R461 million in the second five-year plan which ended in 1971. Of this R153 million was spent on education during that period.

During that period 98 modern towns were established with 82 504 new homes, at a rate of more than 15 000 homes per year. Housing was provided to 413 000 people. Besides that 500 business premises were developed, as well as 361 administrative offices. Sir, I do not have the time to deal in detail with what happened during the five-year period which ended this year, but it is significant to note that in that time R2 milliard was spent on development of the homelands. In view of these facts, it is worth one’s while to draw a comparison between the situation in South Africa with its developing homelands and the position in the rest of Africa. When one draws a comparison here, one finds that our homelands are no worse off than the other developing independent African States. The surface area of most of our homelands compares very favourably with those of other African States. The area which can be cultivated in our homelands, amounts to an average of 13,8%, and this is far more than, for example, than in Tanzania, Malawi, Botswana, Swaziland, Zambia, Lesotho, Niger, Mali and the Sudan. It is also a fact that the de facto population of our homelands is also larger in most cases than that of the other developing independent African States. The composition of a country’s gross domestic product is an indication of the diversification of its economy. Normally speaking it is accepted that the larger the share of the secondary and tertiary sectors, the higher the level of economic development. The percentage share of the secondary and tertiary sectors of the homelands compares very favourably with other countries of Africa and indicates that the economies of the homelands are at least at the same level and in many cases far higher than those of other African States. The gross national income per capita for the homelands varied in 1973 from R153 per capita in Lebowa to R196 per capita in Bophuthatswana. We can compare these figures with, for example, Malawi, which had a gross national income per capita of only R78, while Swaziland had a reasonably high figure, i.e. R204. In the case of Lesotho it was R70, while it was R118 in Uganda, Amin’s country. Only countries like Zambia, the Congo, Ghana, the Ivory Coast and Tunisia have shown a larger per capita income than our homelands. It must be borne in mind that a large portion of the income from those African States is taken out of the country because foreigners have a substantial amount of the income in most of those countries.

A very important tendency is that the average growth rate per year in the per capita income of the homelands, is far higher than that of the African States with which a comparison can be drawn. This indicates that the level of prosperity of our homeland inhabitants is far higher than that of the rest of Africa. The Transkei has had a growth rate of 8,9% between 1960 and 1973; the Ciskei, 8,6%; KwaZulu, 9,4%; Qwa Qwa, 10,2%; Bophuthatswana, 9,5%; and Lebowa, 12,1%. We find that, in the same period, Malawi showed a growth rate of 3,6%; Botswana, 5,5%; Swaziland, 6,3%; Nigeria, 2%, while the Sudan and Lesotho did not show any growth rate at all during this period.

Even in the sphere of health, our homelands are far ahead of the rest of Africa. In the homelands there are on average 23 000 people per doctor and the average number of people per hospital bed amounts to 223. The rest of Africa cannot compete with these figures at all.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the second half-hour? I hope that the hon. member for Cradock will excuse me if I deal with a subject other than the one he has raised. I will in due course deal with the things he has said, and will in the course of my speech be answering some of the questions he has raised.

I want to come back at once to the question of the Transkeian citizenship which was raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana yesterday. He pointed out that the draft Bill on the constitution of the Transkei, which was published in the Transkei Gazette on Friday last gave details of Transkeian citizenship. I want to take this matter a little further and I want to support the protestations of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana about the iniquity of the clause which by the stroke of a pen can deprive something like 1,7 million people of their citizenship of the Republic of South Africa. If they do not take up citizenship of the Transkei, they will be rendered stateless. The confusion that quite obviously exists between the Chief Minister of the Transkei and the hon. Minister must be cleared up and must be cleared up very soon.

It certainly has to be cleared up before 26 October, when the Transkei is scheduled to get its independence. There is an astonishing amount of confusion about this. The Chief Minister of the Transkei stated in an interview that he interpreted this clause in the draft constitution as meaning that persons of Xhosa origin living outside the Transkei could opt whether or not they want to become citizens of the Transkei. The hon. the Minister, however, stated that no such option was available. He went on to make a most extraordinary statement in Die Burger this morning, in which he said that the difference was not great. This is the headline to the article in Die Burger this morning: “Die verskil is nie groot—Botha”. If the hon. the Minister does not think that there is an important difference between his interpretation of this clause and that of the Chief Minister of the Transkei, then I am utterly astonished. I want to tell him that international lawyers will be astonished as well, because this is going to be a matter of great importance in international law. I believe it is going to be null and void as far as international law is concerned. I do not think South Africa will be permitted to render people stateless by the stroke of a pen. This was last done, to the best of my knowledge, by Nazi Germany and I do not think South Africa will be able to follow suit in this regard. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that such an action will also be considered as a gross form of race discrimination in the outside world. I believe it will undoubtedly affect the chances of the recognition of the Transkei, although I do not place those chances very high, in any event, as an independent State by the rest of the world. But I am more concerned about the repercussions at home than I am about the repercussions abroad. I am concerned about the citizenship repercussions on Africans who are living in the urban areas in South Africa. The hon. the Minister should know that the citizenship issue is a burning issue with these people, particularly in view of the fact that one of the conditions which has been laid down—2 post hoc, I might say, to the statement which the hon. the Minister made in this House during May of last year—for the acquisition of a 30 year leasehold in the urban areas. As far as I am concerned, and I am sure also as far as most urban Africans are concerned, this was the most important concession which was announced during the whole of last year. Last year was indeed the year of great expectations, following on the statement made by Mr. Pik Botha at the United Nations. The one important concession the Government made, was to re-institute the 30 year leasehold for the urban areas. It was accepted with acclamation by everybody concerned, including ourselves in these benches.

Subsequently the hon. the Minister made it clear that one of the conditions in the taking up of the 30 year leasehold was that the applicant identified himself with a homeland. Of course, there was immediate consternation among the urban Africans because they are extremely nervous about whether or not the taking up of citizenship of the Transkei or any other homeland for that matter—whether independent or not—is going to affect the privileges—I use the word “privileges”, because the hon. the Minister always blows his top if I use the word “rights”—enjoyed by Africans who fall under section 10(1)(a) or (b) of the Urban Areas Act. The hon. the Minister may not consider this an important section, but to urban Africans it is their very lifeblood; it is a concession which allows them to take up a leasehold of a house as an ordinary tenant. To be placed on the long waiting list for houses, they have to qualify in terms of section 10(1)(a) or (b) in order to obtain a house in the urban area, if one is available—which is very often not the case. Secondly, it enables urban Africans under certain conditions under section 10(1)(a) or (b) to live a family life, which is much cherished by Africans despite what hon. members on the other side may think. Thirdly, if a man loses his job and he is an urban African falling under section 10(1)(a) or (b) of the Act, he is able to seek another job in the urban area without going through the whole rigmarole of obtaining permission, of returning to the homeland and re-entering as a contract labourer. This is a very important privilege which is enjoyed by a section of the African people. There is considerable consternation lest the taking out of citizenship rights of the homeland is going to deprive these people of this privilege. In order to ascertain what the situation was, I asked the hon. the Minister on 13 February this year whether the taking out of citizenship would affect their rights under section 10 of the Act. The hon. the Minister’s answer was “no”. The point I am trying to make is that the vast majority of Africans do not know about this reassurance. And now, with all the additional consternation over the Transkei Constitution Bill, I believe the time has come for the hon. the Minister to make a positive, unequivocal statement to the Press, over the radio and on television—I am even prepared to subject television viewers to the sight of the hon. the Minister—in which he should reassure urban Africans that, if they take up citizenship of a homeland, they will not lose or affect their rights under section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. I believe this to be absolutely essential. The hon. the Minister should proclaim it from the Oppenheimer Tower in Soweto and from every vantage point in every township in the country.

This, of course, excludes townships in the Western Province. They do not fall under the 30-year lease anyway. Maybe, however, he should also proclaim it for them so that they can be reassured that those who do have section 10 rights will retain those rights should they take up homeland citizenship. I believe this is the only hope the hon. the Minister has of getting the 30-year lease scheme off the ground. It is very important that we do get it off the ground. We are united on one thing in this House, and that is the importance of some form of permanency for urban Africans, even if it is only for a generation in terms of NP policy. It enables people to get a measure security. It enables them to make improvements to their homes. It enables them to feel that they are not about the lose the elementary rights of having a home which they can call their own—if only, as I have said, for a generation. As I mentioned earlier, I believe the 30-year lease was the most important concession which the hon. the Minister announced last year, and it is very important from every point of view that the 30-year lease system should get off the ground. At the present stage nobody has taken up a 30-year lease. The scheme has not even started yet although it is almost one year to the day since the hon. the Minister made the announcement. Why it should have taken so long, I do not know. However, I read that now that the West Rand and, I presume, also all the other administration boards, have been given the green light, now that the regulations have been framed, the scheme should get under way. I am prepared to predict that it will not get under way to any great extent unless that reassurance can be given by the hon. the Minister and is widely publicized. It is absolutely essential that it should be widely publicized.

They do not want the citizenship.

I know that is so, but at least let those people know the facts for they cannot get the houses without citizenship. It is one of the conditions laid down. I am dead against it, because it is a form of blackmail. It blackmails these people into taking out citizenship, because without it they cannot get what they so desperately want; a house on a long lease of 30 years to cover them for at least one generation.

There is another point about this citizenship thing which is troubling urban Africans very much indeed. The hon. the Minister ought to know about this. I do not know whether he visits Soweto every so often—with or without a permit, incidentally. I do not know whether he makes many visits to Soweto. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister does not go very often, if at all, but I would like to know how often the hon. the Minister goes. Or does he always rely on what his officials tell him? With all respect to officials, there is a tendency to tell hon. Ministers what they want to hear and not what they do not want to hear. I think the hon. the Minister should go prowling around the townships all by himself and pick up some genuine information all on his own.

I want to mention that there is another important aspect of this citizenship thing which is worrying urban Africans. There is a new regulation that has been published. This regulation makes it imperative that when an African child is born, his citizenship of a homeland is entered on his birth registration card. This is something new, because it has never happened before. It might have given his ethnic basis, but now the parents have to specify that the child is a citizen of a homeland, even if he is born in Soweto, Langa or Guguletu or anywhere else, in any of the other urban townships. This is worrying people very much indeed. They are worried about how it is going to affect the future rights of those children, for instance as far as going to school is concerned. And then, because there are some pessimists among the Africans who believe that this Government may even be in power in 16 years’ time or so, they are also worried about the rights of those children when they come eventually to take our their registration books. And so, Sir, I want the hon. the Minister to do something about this. I should also like him to answer a specific question about the 30-year leases, if he will, and please let us not have any more quotations from Allen Drury’s Book. Page 424 of that book is very dogeared; we have heard it over and over again. I should like some answers to the questions. I want the hon. the Minister to clarify one issue for me. Are African women who qualify under section 10(1)(a) or (b) and who are in service in the urban area, able to qualify for the 30-year leases? Can they take out those 30-year leases, providing of course that they take out citizenship? As I have said, I believe that that is really a disgraceful condition. It ought to be scrapped. In the interests of good human relations, that ought to be scrapped right away. However, supposing a Black woman qualifies in terms of the qualifications laid down, is she eligible for this scheme? The qualifications are, of course, that she must be in service in the area and that she falls under section 10(1)(a) or (b) of the Urban Areas Act. There is also a third condition which I do not think is very relevant because it has to do with the general administration of townships. It is exercised in terms of some proclamation or other.

Sir, I may say that I have had two conflicting opinions from the Minister in this regard. In the first place I have an answer he gave me to a question. I asked him what the qualifications were going to be for the 30-year lease, and he said that apart from the qualification relating to service in a prescribed area, there was a qualification relating to the identification of a person “with his or her own Bantu nation ”. I was entitled, I think, to assume from that that females would qualify as well. Therefore I was somewhat concerned to read a memo sent out by the department, which summarized some conference of the administrators of the urban areas. That memo stated that only Black males who qualified for family housing in terms of the provisions of section 10(1)(a) or (b) would qualify for the 30-year lease. Now, will the hon. the Minister tell me which it is? Do males and females qualify, or do only males qualify? This is a matter of great importance to thousands of Black females, who are the heads of households in the urban areas and are in fact often the wage-earners for their families. There are today large numbers of African females who are the official tenants of houses in the urban areas, and they may very well want to take out these 30-year leases which they can bequeath, which they can sell and so on. I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to clarify those points.

Sir, I should like to continue on the question of housing because it is so all-important, and here, for once, I am in agreement with the hon. member for Innesdal. I refer to this overwhelmingly important question of housing and the manner in which it is financed. I believe, as I think he does, that it is absolutely wrong that the building of houses is so dependent on the quantity of liquor which is consumed in the townships. It is disgraceful. [Interjections.] They are encouraged to drink, because this is the major source of funds for the administration boards. As I say, it is a disgrace. I should like to know in the first place why there are no sub-economic houses for Blacks, who form the poorest section of the community. There are sub-economic houses for Coloureds, for Whites and for Asians. Why are there none for Blacks? Why is it decreed that there shall be none for Blacks? Then, too, when are we going to get away from what I call this “booze economy”? That is what it is; it is a “booze economy”. It depends upon the amount of booze which the Africans in the urban areas consume, and it is a disgrace. I believe that the time has come for the Department of Bantu Administration …

May I ask a question?

No, I am sorry. If I have time at the end of my speech, I shall be glad to answer a question. I believe that the Department of Bantu Administration ought to have its own allocation for housing.

Should the Blacks pay more than they are paying at the moment?

Of course, if the whole scale of wage rates went up, they would be able to pay more, but that depends on various factors, including the minimum wages laid down by the Industrial Conciliation Board and by the Wage Board. As I was saying, however, the department ought to have its own housing allocations …

It does.

No, it does not; it has to stand in line for allocations from the Department of Community Development, does it not? It has to stand in a queue to get the crumbs. I do not want that. I want the hon. the Minister, who is running his little empire, to have some more money to run his little empire, but I want him to spend the money for his little empire on the right things, and one of the right things is housing. The official estimate of the housing unit shortage in Soweto alone is 17 000 and the unofficial estimate is something like 22 000. Last year only 761 houses were built in Soweto, while the natural increase requires 2 500 per annum to be built in Soweto. This is just to keep up with the natural increase. How we are going to catch up with the shortfall is quite beyond me. We therefore need a whole new system of financing of housing for those West Rand administration boards and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Without that we are not going to get a bean.

The city council of Johannesburg used to subsidize, but when the West Rand Administration Board took over the subsidizing stopped. The West Rand Administration Board, however, did very little for three years about housing. Now the city council has a very original scheme, and for the record the credit must go to my colleague, Dr. Selma Browde, who originally suggested this idea. The council is to make a revolving loan at a low rate of interest, and I am glad to say that at least 5 000 houses are scheduled to be built in Soweto this year. However, this is a drop in the ocean, and unless something is done about an overall review of the financing of housing, I think we are lost.

The hon. the Minister, I must say, is under some strange delusion. He told me, in reply to a question in this House, that the population of Soweto was about 630 000. He must be joking! Surely he cannot accept that figure as correct. The West Rand Administration Board puts the figure at nearly 900 000, which is nearly 50% higher, while unofficial estimates by people who are in and out doing surveys the whole time, put the figure at between 1,3 million and 1,4 million. If the hon. the Minister is basing his estimates of what is needed for housing on this ludicrous figure of 630 000, he can just forget it; it is absolute nonsense. The result is that Soweto, which I happen to know very well, is turning into a gigantic overcrowded slum with 14 people to a house. I do not have to enlarge on the fact that delinquency, crime and alcoholism all go together with bad housing conditions and overcrowding. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister really to get cracking.

I now come to the report of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The first thing I want to comment on are the figures furnished in connection with the aid centres. There are now 18 aid centres operating. The hon. member for Griqualand East wanted to know what was happening about the little committee that was sitting on race discrimination, and I want to know what has happened to the committee which was sitting on the pass laws, because we had a committee sitting on that too. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us whether he has come up with any bright ideas on that one, of course apart from repealing these awful laws. However, let us leave that on one side.

I have no pass laws in my department.

Well, you mentioned that in your speech last year.

I never talked about pass laws, because I do not have any. [Interjections.]

Well, what does the hon. the Minister have? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell me what nomenclature he uses for these laws which everybody else in the country refers to as the pass laws. Does he refer to them as the “abolition of pass laws”? I wonder how he refers to them, because that is how the Act refers to them. Anyway, we learn from the report that 122 334 persons were kept out of gaol as a result of the work of the aid centres, including some 77 000 who were cautioned and discharged, whose cases were withdrawn or who received suspended sentences. That is very good and I commend the aid centres for that. What I want to know, however, is what happened to the remaining 45 000. If 77 000 were kept out of gaol out of approximately 122 000 who were referred to the aid centres, what happened to the other 45 000?

I presume they were just bundled back to the homelands. Do you know what happens? They just catch the next train back to the urban areas. If anybody genuinely thinks the “abolition of pass laws” is working, he really has another thing coming. All that happens is that thousands upon thousands of people get arrested every year and sent to gaol despite the very good work which is being done by the aid centres. These aid centres unfortunately cannot change the law. All they can do is to try to get people who have been arrested for the non-production given the opportunity to produce those documents.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not be prepared to reconsider the curfew regulations, these mediaeval curfew regulations which result in 65 000 convictions a year. Everybody knows that the youngster in the household writes out this special pass, everybody knows that every criminal has his pass in order and everybody knows that Africans who can write, write out their passes. Let us therefore do away with this ridiculous law and we will have done one positive thing so far as removing discrimination is concerned.

The report of the department is notable for one glaring omission. Farmers, get ready! I hope you are all ready, because I want to point out that there is not one word in this report that I can find—I may have missed it, but I doubt it—about the three to four million Africans living and working on White farms in South Africa. There is not one word about the Africans in the White rural areas of South Africa. Is the hon. the Minister not responsible for them? Is his department not responsible for them? There is quite a lot about the urban areas and there is a great deal about the homelands, but I cannot find one word about the Africans on the rural farms. As I have said, I might have missed it and I am sure that if I have, the hon. the Minister will tell me. Who looks after these people? Is it the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, or is it the hon. the Minister of Labour?

The farmers themselves.

Oh, the farmers themselves look after them. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to know something about the three to four million Africans in the White rural areas of South Africa.

What is wrong with them?

I shall tell the hon. member what is wrong with them. They are among the most unprotected members of our society. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, this always brings screams of wrath, but I do not really care. I want to point out to hon. members that no hours of work are laid down for these people and no minimum wages either. It is left to the good offices of their employers, and while some of them are very good employers, some of them are not very good employers. The point is that I want to know what is happening to these people and I want to know why the hon. the Minister does not know what is happening to them. Will he tell me whether or not these people are the responsibility of his department? Sending one or two inspectors around does not, as far as I am concerned, constitute taking responsibility for this huge section of our population about whom one hardly ever hears one word spoken in this House. I say that not only do they number an enormous number of people, but they represent a very important work force in South Africa and they deserve, I think, our proper and constant care.

There is another omission from the report and for this I am able to commend the hon. the Minister. I do so with the greatest of pleasure. I can find no mention of the establishment of any rehabilitation centres in the homelands, and for this I am duly grateful. Proclamation R. 133 of 1975 has presumably quietly been shelved. That is exactly what should have happened to it after the uproar that was created by the very foolish way in which those rehabilitation centres were originally presented to the public of South Africa. I am glad to say that the Government has shown a little sense in so far as this is concerned.

In the few minutes still at my disposal I want simply to mention one or two things about the rural areas of the homelands. Again I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do something about the people of Mayen who were moved to Vaalboshoek, a place which they loathe, a place which was flooded out during the recent rains and can be flooded out again at a future time, a place from which they moved and went to gaol rather than return to. I was against the original removal and I am not condoning it in principle now, but if people have to be moved, let them at least be moved to a place where they have a reasonable chance of being happy.

Secondly, I want to mention Winterveld, that blot on the landscape approximately 36 km outside Pretoria. I know that it is in the Bophuthatswana homeland. I am aware of that. There are 360 000 people estimated to be living there under the most awful slum conditions. I want to know what progress, if any, the hon. the Minister has made—in consultation with the Government of Bophuthatswana, if you like—in doing something about this area. These people are without the most elementary services. I know that some wells have been sunk from which they can now get water, and that some attempt has been made to inoculate these people against diseases and I believe there is even a school or two, but by and large the schooling is inadequate, there are no clinics on the spot, the housing conditions are terrible and a vast squatter slum has developed there. What I cannot get the hon. the Minister to understand, is that simply bulldozing the shacks is not the answer. This ties up with the whole squatter question everywhere. The whole thing must be reconsidered in terms of the push-factor of poverty that drives these people to the areas where they will be near the source of work. Therefore it is no good just bulldozing the shelters and thinking that one has then solved the problem. Winterveld is an eyesore. The people of Pretoria are concerned about it, as well they might be, because most of the people concerned are in fact employed in Pretoria. This problem arises partly because an insufficient number of houses has been built for the people who are actually working in Pretoria. This is something I believe the hon. the Minister simply must do something about.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us what he is doing about the dissatisfaction of the South Sotho people who find themselves in the Transkei and do not want to be part of an independent Transkei. They feel they do not belong there. They believe that their language rights are jeopardized and that they themselves are being persecuted, not by this Government, but by the Transkeian Government. Certainly, they get a lot of letters reminding them about Proclamation 400. Since the hon. the Minister himself is the one who has raised ethnicity almost to the level of a religious persuasion, he cannot but expect that these people will take him seriously and will ask that they be joined to their own ethnic group rather than be left in the Transkei since they do not belong to the Xhosa people. Those are questions I should like the hon. the Minister to answer.

There is one final question, also in connection with an ethnic grouping. Could he please tell us how far he has progressed with the question of the Ndebele people? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton touched on a whole lot of matters which one would like to answer. In the time at my disposal I shall do so as quickly as possible. The question of the Transkei’s independence and the draft constitution published in this regard—this question was also touched on by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—is undoubtedly a matter which ought not to be debated in this House now. The draft constitution was published for the Transkei to be considered by those people. It is not legislation of this Parliament. The hon. member complained and said that this House ought to have taken cognizance of it because ours is the mother body. It is perfectly true that ours is the mother body, but what have we been engaged in over the past few years? The fact of the matter is that if one compares it with our own constitutional development, it is evident that it is following approximately the same course of development. We had the South Africa Act of 1909 from England. Only from 1926 to approximately 1943 did we have the full and equal constitutional development of South Africa. Only with the passing of the Status laws and with the Statute of Westminster in England, did South Africa obtain its independence in the true sense of the word. To carry the example through: We first had the Transkei Act and our Parliament as the mother body, will in all probability have to adopt a status act to round off this matter. As far as citizenship is concerned, it is very clear to me that the hon. member was zealously looking for possible loopholes and that she seized upon the first opportunity offered to her, with the sole object of putting a spoke in the wheel. What are the facts of the matter? We see that the newspapers are dealing with this matter in a very circumspect way, because there is a difference between what is stated in the draft constitution and what is alleged to be the interpretation of Chief Matanzima. The fact of the matter is that there are imperative words in the constitution concerning the registration of citizens, whereas, in the case of Whites and Indians, only an empowering word—the word “may”—is used in the draft constitution. So there is a very clear difference.

In their “concern” about this matter—and I place the word concern in quotation marks— the hon. members completely overlooked one very important matter. This is the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, an Act which was passed by this Parliament in 1970 and which gave continuity to the matter. I want to draw attention to section 2 of that Act (Act No. 26 of 1970), which provides that there shall be citizenship of every territorial authority area. Furthermore, section 2(2) reads: “Every Bantu person in the Republic shall, if he is not a citizen of any self-governing Bantu territory in the Republic and is not a prohibited immigrant in the Republic, be a citizen of one or other territorial authority area.” Therefore, by means of legislation, citizenship has already been created for every Bantu person in his own homeland, both in the homelands which are going to become independent in the near future and those that are going to wait longer.

Mr. Chairman, now I should like to give those hon. members something which they can put in their pipes and smoke. They can reflect on this in the meantime so that they may be able to speak with more insight when the proper time arrives to debate this matter. I want to put it to them that there is a big difference between citizenship and nationality. We can debate this matter more meaningfully on a later occasion.

The hon. member for Houghton made a few interesting noises here this afternoon. She used to tell the hon. the Minister what was happening as far as the Blacks in South Africa were concerned. This afternoon, however, she asked the hon. the Minister what the position of the rural Bantu was. This was a very refreshing sound indeed. She used to prescribe to the hon. the Minister. Today, however, she asked him a question. The best testimonial of which this Government can boast, however, is the fact that those Blacks have not yet complained to the hon. member for Houghton. What can say more than this? Another pleasant sound from the side of the hon. member for Houghton was her sudden ethnic orientation. In the concluding sentence of her speech she requested the hon. the Minister to ensure that a certain group of people were settled, ethnically, with their own people and not with the Xhosa people. We thank the hon. member for this. The hon. member is receiving the gift of insight very late in her life. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, this brings me to the question of housing and the shortage thereof. The hon. member for Houghton has a lament about the conditions in Soweto. She describes it as a “gigantic, over-crowded slum”. After this speech of hers, I do not believe that the hon. member for Houghton will speak in this hon. House about influx control again. She will not deliver another plea here for further bad socio-economic conditions. We thank her for this.

I also want to refer briefly to the question of the provision of Bantu beer. I do not want to join issue with the hon. member for Innesdal, but I want to emphasize that we should not advocate that an end be made to the traditional custom of the Bantu to consume certain sorts of liquor with a high nutritional value, such as Bantu beer. We must not be the cause of this no longer being made available to them. If we were to do this, we would force them to consume other types of liquor which are subject to excise duty and which have a very high alcohol content. What would happen in that case? In that case it would not be the Bantu who would pocket the profits. This is something which we must bear in mind. I do not want to say anything further about this, except to request the hon. member for Houghton to read the speech made by the hon. the Minister when he recently opened a certain undertaking for the manufacture of Bantu beer. I believe that she can learn a great deal from that speech.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the total financing set-up in respect of projects in Bantu homelands, the creation over the years of a situation which has been instrumental in bringing about a phenomenal increase in the income of the Bantu, certainly is one of the greatest achievements of this Government. It exceeds all projections and expectations to date. It is very interesting that for the year 1974-’75 the total income of all population groups in South Africa was R14 618 million. It is very interesting that 25,7% of this, namely R3 750 million, was earned by Black people for South Africa as a whole, in other words, they put 25% in their pockets, namely, this amount of R3,75 billion. The homelands themselves earned R925 million in the year 1974-’75. I am speaking of individual earnings, that money which goes for investments, for spending and for the purchase of consumer goods. Furthermore, it is interesting that while the percentage increase for all population groups was 13,7%, that in the homelands was 20,8%. At this rate, of 7% above the average, we may rightly estimate that by the end of this century the Bantu homelands as a whole will have twice the amount of income as the total of White South Africa. Sir, these are enlightening figures, figures which must be interpreted. What they mean in the first place, is the rise of a strong middle class—the answer, inter alia, to communism. What they mean in the second place, is that there is an amount available here for spending. The question is how it is being spent. The question is how the authorities are being put in a position to utilize these immense resources in order to bring about development. Consequently it is necessary that the responsible authorities—and now I am turning my thoughts to the homelands in particular— resort to fiscal measures in order to prevent the development of an overheated economy, a too great demand for consumer goods and as a result a tremendous demand inflation in the homelands and amongst the Bantu in the White area itself. In other words, they will have to apply the same measures as we do to cool down, namely fiscal measures, such as taxes or loan levies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by addressing a personal word of thanks to the hon. member for Lydenburg for his friendly reference to the fact that I have been performing this pleasant task for 10 years now, and to the hon. member for Innesdal as well. The hon. member for Lydenburg will forgive me for saying that the hon. member for Innesdal has a rather more personal relationship with me, because I think it has very seldom happened that a Minister has been joined in this House by his former private secretary who has become a member of the House of Assembly. This is the case between me and the hon. member for Innesdal. When I was a Deputy Minister and after I became Minister, the hon. member for Innesdal was employed in our Ministry, so I think he is able to make a fairly sound evaluation of what has been happening over many years, even longer than 10 years. I want to thank him very sincerely for what he said. I hope that the inspiration he gained there will enable him to sit on much more important benches one day than he is sitting on now.

I should like to reply to the points in the order in which they were raised here by the hon. members.

†I prefer to start with the hon. member for Houghton. I must say that the hon. member for Houghton put so many questions that I could not count them. I cannot possibly reply to every one of the 110 plus questions she put to me. In regard to some of them, especially those in regard to citizenship, I will have more to say in connection with what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said yesterday when I come to him in a moment. I can just say this in regard to the hon. member’s question whether the citizenship requirement for houses can affect the section 10 privileges of Bantu persons in the White areas. I have on many occasions …

I know that.

Now the hon. member interjects to say that she knows, but why then did she ask the question? I have on many occasions in the past said that the citizenship qualification of Bantu persons in the White areas will not affect their section 10 privileges. I have said so many times. As a matter of fact, I have always said that the acceptance of citizenship of a homeland by a Bantu person in the White part of South Africa is of very great importance to every one of these Bantu people. In future it will prove to be still more important than the section 10 qualifications, but the unfortunate position is that many of the suspected followers of that hon. member indulge in warning against citizenship qualifications for Bantu persons in the White areas.

They need to be assured.

I have said it in the past, and I will repeat it today. I need not appear on television to do that. The hon. member for Houghton also asked me about a Bantu woman with certain section 10 qualifications and home ownership. That is a matter which we are still considering and I cannot give her a further explanation on that point today. The hon. member also asked why we do not offer sub-economic housing any more. Sub-economic housing is still being provided to a very limited extent. We do get sub-economic housing here and there, especially in the smaller places. The position is, however, that sub-economic housing is not necessary for two very important reasons. It is not necessary to provide sub-economic housing, because, firstly, the Bantu, in terms of what they earn, can afford to pay for economic housing, especially if the houses are built according to certain specifications and, secondly, because of the very fair price of the houses my department builds for them. The houses are not elaborate and the Bantu can afford them. The hon. member has asked me about a committee which investigated certain laws and regulations—the pass laws, as she is accustomed to call them. A departmental committee has gone into the matter and has reported to me, the Deputy Ministers and the Secretary of the department. We are dealing with the recommendations at the moment. As a matter of fact, certain of their recommendations have already been implemented. It was not, however, meant to be publicly announced or intended for the attention of the hon. member. It was for my and my department’s purpose only.

The hon. member also asked about the Bantu on the farms, in the rural areas. Naturally the Bantu in the rural areas, on the farms, are not so much involved in our administration as those living in the other White areas, but they are involved in so far as labour regulations and labour administration are concerned. They fall under the Bantu Administration Boards. The hon. member probably knows that the rural areas are also included within the areas of the Bantu Administration Boards. The whole of the magisterial district is included and not only the prescribed areas. The Bantu Administration Boards are therefore, to an increasing extent, giving their attention to the farm labourers. However, I want to remind the hon. member that especially my other department, which is not under discussion at the moment, the Department of Bantu Education, is very much involved with the Bantu on the farms and the hon. member can spend her time very usefully to study the report of the Secretary for Bantu Education and to see what the farmers are doing to advance the education of the Bantu children in the rural areas. As far as the Bantu people are concerned …I am waiting for the hon. member for Houghton.

My attention was distracted.

As far as the people of Mayen are concerned, I am aware that some of those people would have preferred to go somewhere else. The farms which I think they have in mind and where they would like to move have not yet been bought. We made no promises, and I make no promises here today. However, when those farms are available, we will consider the matter properly and see whether we can perhaps be of assistance to them in that direction.

The hon. member also talked about Winterveld. I wonder whether she has been there already. Winterveld falls within the jurisdiction of Bophuthatswana, as the hon. member knows and has said, and we have had some discussion already with the Bophuthatswana Cabinet and officials in regard to Winterveld. We have decided—the Deputy Minister who deals with the matter—to conduct certain surveys of the area, and after we have completed those surveys we will give proper attention to what measures need to be introduced there. I am aware that the Bophuthatswana Government is also considering the feasibility and plausibility and necessity of perhaps introducing legislation in their Legislative Assembly to deal with certain conditions in that area. That is therefore also a matter which is under consideration by my department.

During the closing moments of her speech the hon. member raised the question of the South Sothos in the Transkei. The position in regard to the South Sothos in the Transkei is quite clear. We have explained to them that they have been under the Transkei in terms of the existing Transkei constitution for many years and in the first instance they would have to go to the Transkeian Government and to the Transkeian Parliament if they prefer a change in the matter. They should do what the people of Herschel and Glen Grey did last year in the Ciskei, namely to go to their own Parliament and to raise the matter there.

The hon. member’s last question was in regard to the Ndebele. My reply to her is that I have replied to the Ndebele personally. I have had negotiations with them and departmental officials and also Deputy Ministers have had negotiations with them. If they want to know any more about the matter, they can approach me or the Deputy Ministers again. That is my reply to the hon. member for Houghton.

Reply? Is that a reply?

It boils down to the fact that I do not regard the hon. member for Houghton as a representative of the Ndebele.

I am a member of this House and as such entitled to an explanation.

I now come back to the hon. member for Griqualand East and I should like to reply to his questions. The hon. member reminds me of Leipoldt’s song where he says: “Ek speel op my ou ramkie met nog net een snaar, in die maanskyn deurmekaar.” He keeps harping on that one string.

Why don’t you reply?

Yes, the poor member for Griqualand East keeps harping on the same string of the Whites in the Transkei who, he says, are being neglected by us.

But you have forgotten your promises.

I never knew the hon. member was a day dreamer. He had better keep quiet. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad if the hon. members would give me a chance to reply, that is if they want to know the answer. Perhaps they do not want to know, because if they know, they will not harp on the same string any longer.

Give the answer.

The hon. member said that they had asked all kinds of questions and that we had never furnished any details. I wonder whether the hon. member knows how unfair he is in saying that. I did not wait for my Vote to come up for discussion at the end of April this year. I made a long statement on 20 February, a statement of four typewritten pages, quite apart from sporadic announcements made by me and others. In the public statement of 20 February I made quite a number of points—I would almost call it a progress report—in connection with the granting of independence to the Transkei. Since then we have had several discussions, and only recently the Transkei’s Ministers were here and had talks with me and the hon. the Prime Minister. On that occasion we issued statements again, and I do not know how the hon. member can imply that we are not taking any notice of the people there. I think the hon. member is playing politics and gaining popularity for himself in a cheap way with the White electorate there.

Just answer my questions.

I am going to answer them. The hon. member need not become so excited, hysterical and restless, because I am going to answer his questions. The first important point I mentioned was that the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa would have to pass legislation with a view to the granting of independence to the Transkei and that the Transkei itself would have to provide for a new constitution for the independent State. We shall introduce legislation this year, during this session, to give the Transkei the status it needs to pass a constitution for itself as an independent country. This is what I want to call the basic, the enabling legislation. I said this in February and I said it to the hon. member personally.

We know you said that, but we want the details.

I am not going to give the hon. member details of what will be laid down in laws. Some of the laws have already been tabled and discussed here. The hon. the Minister of Justice recently introduced the Act in connection with the appeal court which also had a bearing on the approaching independence of the Transkei. Several other pieces of legislation are going to follow, apart from the constitutional legislation. The hon. member is too quick to imply that we take no notice of what is going on and that we furnish no particulars. Of course, the hon. member contradicts himself very often in regard to these matters. He spoke here this afternoon of the White people in the Transkei who own properties and in the same breath he said two completely contradictory things. On the one hand the hon. member said that the Government was making too little money available for this purpose and that we were purchasing so few properties that it would take very long indeed—he made certain calculations but I do not accept them—to buy out the properties of all those people. Just before that, the hon. member had alleged that we were deliberately holding back the money to keep the people there for a long time. One moment the hon. member says that the impression is being created that we want to keep the people there for a long time, and the next moment he says that we must try to get them out of the Transkei as soon as possible. Does the hon. member know what he wants?

You did not follow me.

He is too stupid.

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

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, words reflect a mentality to match. The hon. member asked where the announcements made by the hon. the Minister of Finance during his budget speech would be applicable. The hon. the Minister made it quite clear here that those additional methods of purchasing were intended for purchasing agricultural land for Bantu homelands. We shall proceed with this and I want to point out that it will require a small amendment to the law, which we shall introduce in the near future. However, this has nothing to do with the independence of the Transkei, since it is concerned with purchasing agricultural land for Bantu homelands all over South Africa.

The hon. member had quite a lot to say about citizenship as well, but I shall come to that when I reply to the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member asked why less money was being appropriated for the Adjustment Committee this year than last year. The hon. member must have a good look at the budget. He will see that in the budget of my department alone—I did not go through the budgets of all the others—there are several items for which less money is being appropriated than last year. These include farm purchases. The hon. member should know what the reason for this is. In the light of the financial position and in order to combat inflation, the Government has had to take more drastic action. What is the true position? The amount for land purchases and for the purchasing of properties in the Transkei by the Adjustment Committee has been reduced by only about R½ million. The hon. member does not know this, but there are such things as money coming back to the Adjustment Committee. Properties that have already been bought are sold again or leased, for example. The income from this also goes to the Adjustment Committee.

That is why I asked whether more money was going to be added.

Yes. It is estimated that there will be an additional income of approximately R800 000 for this purpose alone. This is a considerable amount, more than the difference between the amount budgeted for this year and the amount budgeted for last year. Over the years we have spent almost R38 million in connection with this task up to now, i.e. from 1965 up to and including 1976. We shall continue with the process after independence. We said in the statement made in February that the White Paper would remain applicable. I quote—

The system continues as before, otherwise we would have to purchase all the land before independence. The same applies, of course, to farm land which is being purchased and which is intended for the Transkei.

The hon. member asked how the budget payments in connection with the Transkei would be made. He was referring to the amounts mentioned here. He said that larger amounts were involved this year. There are certain reasons why the amounts are larger this year. While looking up the place in the book, I must compliment the hon. member. I think this is the first time in the ten years I have been explaining this Vote in the House that it has been necessary for me to refer to an actual item in the budget in consequence of a question asked by the hon. member. Usually we speak of many other things.

You are getting old. Your memory is beginning to fail you.

No, I am not getting old at all.

There is a very big increase in respect of the Transkei alone. This can be ascribed to several important factors. One very important fact which the hon. member will call to mind at once is the addition of Glen Grey and Herschel to the Transkei. This involves a very large financial obligation. The amount in respect of the various services required is almost R8 million. Of course, a considerable amount of extra money is necessary for facilities— buildings and other projects—that are being made available in the Transkei with a view to its approaching independence. There is a large amount involved in this as well. Half a million rand is required for the housing scheme in the Butterworth industrial area. A large amount is also required for social pensions and other expenditure of a similar nature, which may be necessary from 1 October. The expenditure on these few items amounts to almost R22 million in all.

The difference is R60 million. Look at it yourself.

I have looked.

Look again. The two amounts are R132 million and R75 million.

I do not know where the hon. member is looking. I think he is wasting my time now. The difference between the budget for 1975-’76 and the budget for 1976-’77 is not as large as the hon. member says it is.

The figures are there. [Interjections.]

Sir, one can only shake one’s head in compassion. The hon. member asked a question in connection with the officials.

Before you come to that, I just want to remind you of the fact that I also asked a question in connection with the basis for the allocation of money.

Yes, that is correct; I almost forgot about it. The basis on which money is allocated is one of the matters in respect of which the hon. the Minister of Finance will introduce legislation during this session. I do not want to anticipate him as far as that is concerned. All I am able to say is that those particulars will be submitted to the House in the form of legislation.

As far as the officials are concerned, I want to say that there will be allowances for them as well. However, this is related to the matter I have just referred to, and therefore I cannot give any further details at this stage.

Before you leave this question, may I ask whether the amount of R3½ million to which I referred has already been spent?

Is the hon. member referring to the Adjustment Committee?

Yes.

My information is that it has almost all been spent. I am referring now to the year that is past.

In other words, only about R800 000 remains for this year?

Which year is the hon. member referring to now?

I am referring to this year.

But this year has not passed yet. We cannot have spent everything, after all.

But you said that it had almost all been spent.

I understood the hon. member to refer to the year that is past.

No, I am speaking of this year.

But this year is hardly three weeks old. Surely we cannot have spent everything in three weeks’ time.

But I read out the letter of the Adjustment Committee, in which it was said that as early as April the amount …

Order!

It is true that obligations have been entered into; but the money has not been paid out yet.

The hon. member also asked me a question in connection with demands for land made by the Transkei and other homelands. Sir, the Bible tells us of the poor that we shall always have them with us. There is something else which is like the poor and that is the replies they will get from us. The reply they will get from us will always be with them, just like the poor. It will remain the same. We have met our obligation in respect of the acquisition of land in terms of the 1936 Act. As hon. members on this side have so often said, we have done our duty with the parliamentary decisions that have been taken. All that remains is for them to be implemented. We shall not go beyond those figures and we shall not exceed the quota.

Like the promise about Port St. Johns?

We have explained this over and over again. The hon. member would do well to go and look it up. I really cannot add a single word to the explanation I have given here in connection with Port St. Johns. The hon. member can go and look up my reply. He knows quite well what the reply is. [Interjections.] In any case, the hon. member knows deep down that we acted correctly in connection with Port St. Johns.

The hon. member asked me a question about a committee of which I was supposed to be the chairman and which investigated discriminatory measures. He had read about it in the Press, he said. It is true that I was the chairman of that committee for a time. At the beginning of the committee’s activities someone else was the chairman. That investigation was undertaken and a report was drawn up for the use of the Cabinet. It is in the hands of my colleagues at the moment, and the Cabinet still has to take its final decision on the matter. It has not done so up to now. I may just tell the hon. member that many of the measures he considers to be discriminatory have already been abrogated by disuse and have been abolished. However, I leave this matter at that. I think I have now replied to all the questions asked by the hon. member.

†The hon. member for Jeppe asked me a question yesterday relating to big employers who wish to make available housing for their employees in Bantu urban residential areas. That is a practice which we have already applied in the past. I may refer the hon. member for instance to the position in the Vaal triangle, in Sebokeng, where a project by Iscor is being undertaken in this connection. Hostels are being built inside that area. The Railways and certain other employers have also embarked on this project. I need not go into all the particulars. This is therefore an established principle we are quite in favour of. I know what the hon. member’s object was yesterday. He would like to have special financial concessions as incentives or enticements for these people. That is a very important point, but fortunately, or unfortunately, it is not for me to determine. It is a matter for the Treasury.

But you can press for it.

I can press for it and I can ask for it, that is true. However, yesterday the hon. member compared the position to that of the farms in rural areas. I think, however, that the hon. member will agree with me that the position of employers in urban areas is not exactly the same as that in respect of those on farms in rural areas. It is, in point of fact, very different in many respects, so I do not think it is a very strong argument that they should get the same encouragement as the farmers in rural areas. However, I undertake to give my attention to this matter because another hon. member on this side—I think it was the hon. member for Innesdal—also mentioned this. I shall certainly apply my mind to the problem and hold discussions with the Treasury. However, I do not promise anything …

That is not the way to approach the matter.

It is the only right approach.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to inquire whether this permission granted to employers may be extended to the building of family housing for Bantu.

Yes, it is a principle which may be extended to that as well.

The hon. member for Jeppe also asked me a question in connection with the functions and status of urban Bantu councils. He asked whether they could not have more powers and duties entrusted to them. There is a permissive provision in this connection in the Act and we have always recommended to municipalities in the past—and this is now being done with the administration boards as well—that more and more functions should be entrusted to the urban Bantu councils in consultation with us. This is a matter which has been raised before. I have discussed this matter with certain Bantu leaders and with the department myself. At this very moment we are giving attention to this specific matter—in terms of measures we are taking in consequence of the reports about which the hon. member for Houghton questioned me a short while ago—to determine to what extent one may entrust more functions to those councils.

†Now I would like to come to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Unfortunately that hon. member based his speech on a few false premises and wishful thinking, as is so often the case with the hon. member. It was very wrong of him to have said yesterday that separate development was designed primarily for the urban Bantu. The hon. member for Lydenburg also dealt with that argument yesterday. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s approach is a very superficial one. It is not at all correct to say that. Separate development was not designed for that purpose. Here I am referring to the normal usage of the word “designed”, for example in the sense that that hon. member designs his election campaigns. Separate development is the universal mode of living of nations. It is also the mode of living of our White people. We also live in accordance with separate development. It is a universal mode of living in the sense that every nation or national unit has the desire to develop sui generis according to his own requirements and basic needs.

Where we have a variety of such nations here in South Africa, we have by law regulated the processes of development and the ways in which they live. We are still proceeding to do so since the development of a nation continues for ever. The hon. member should know that the development of a nation is dynamic and not static. Separate development is also not meant for the urban Blacks only, as the hon. member has said, but is a natural system of development for all the members of all the national groups in South Africa and therefore the Whites are also involved in separate development. We also enjoy the privileges of and the opportunities which separate development gives us in our separate part of South Africa. This was my view and approach right from the beginning. [Interjections.] I notice that that hon. member at the back laughs, but I cannot help it if small persons laugh at big things. I say that this was my approach right from the beginning and I clearly set it out in this very House in 1966, during the first speech I made as Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I think it may be of some value if I quote just a brief part of what I said on 13 October 1966 (Hansard, vol. 18. col. 4127) when I told the House how I saw my task—

I have applied myself to that task and I am still busy with it.

The hon. member also referred to the draft constitution of the Transkei. I have already informed the House earlier, and also today that we shall pass basic legislation giving the Transkei the power to enact its own constitution.

During this session?

Yes, during this session. I have already said it and I say it now for the third time.

When are we going to get the Bill?

Very soon, I hope. The Transkei becoming independent will therefore be discussed in this House during this session. The hon. member referred to the position of the Whites and the Coloureds in the Transkei and I shall deal with it presently in the light of what I said earlier this year in a statement. The hon. member also referred to the question of citizenship, a very vital matter in connection with the independence of the Transkei. This matter will, of course, also be debated in this House because the question of citizenship will form part of the Bill. Especially in connection with citizenship, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana displayed wishful thinking. I should like to point out to him that the matter of citizenship is by far not as intricate or involved as he viewed it yesterday. At this very moment we know who are the citizens of the Transkei; we know all of them. The same categories of people who, generally speaking, are today Transkeian citizens will also be citizens of the independent Transkei.

Do they accept that?

On this very matter the hon. the Prime Minister and myself as representatives of the Government of the Republic of South Africa came to an agreement with the two Ministers Matanzima who represented the Transkei. We came to an agreement a few weeks ago here in Cape Town. As a matter of fact, we did not have differences of opinion on this matter as some newspapers suggest and as some M.P.s hope.

Did you read Kaizer’s speech?

He was with us here. We had the whole thing in front of us. In the Transkei draft constitution, as well as in the legislation which will be passed here, citizenship will be dealt with. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana overlooked the fact that to a considerable extent citizenship in respect of the Transkei will be automatic, as has been the case to date. The hon. member can consult the present constitution. Indeed, he had the draft constitution in his hand at the time, but I think he did not read it properly. As I have said, citizenship in respect of the Transkei will be automatic. What the hon. member also does not realize …

Yesterday I said just that.

The hon. member must not get so excited. Yesterday the hon. member was so calm and so timid that I even wrote a personal little letter to him—I am sure the hon. member will not mind if I say so—in which I remarked how calm and modest he had been. Why then is he getting so excited now?

Who is getting excited?

The hon. member knows in his heart that we are right.

What the hon. member does not realize either is that the moment the Transkei becomes independent, the Transkeians will, in terms of the constitution, which will then be their final constitution, and in terms of the legislation which we shall pass here, cease to be South African citizens. At the same time they will automatically become Transkeian citizens so that if the Transkei should thereafter refuse or withdraw the citizenship of some of them, they will not become stateless as a result of an Act passed here in Cape Town but as a result of a step taken by the Transkeian Government. That should be very clear. [Interjections.] Behold the excitement!

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister this question: Supposing that that which he suggested, takes place—what does one do then?

Mr. Chairman, now the hon. member has confirmed what I have maintained right from the start. I have said that his whole speech was based on wishful thinking, and now he comes with yet another supposition. It is wishful thinking. What he has just spoken of is what he desires. Let us confine ourselves to the facts as embodied in the draft constitution and in the legislation we shall pass.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister another question?

No, the hon. member is becoming too excited now. I wish to proceed. Our law will make Transkeian citizens of them, but with the further stipulation that they will not be regarded as foreigners, which is a point that was raised yesterday and was again raised today by the hon. member for Griqualand East. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana almost shouted “Hurrah!” and “Hosanna!” yesterday at what he called the downfall of separate development, and we see the same excitement here today. This is false jubilation. I can assure the hon. member that this Government and also the Transkeian Government will see this most important development, i.e. Transkei’s independence, through. That assurance I can give the hon. member. I accept that in the course of time we may encounter problems and obstacles, but we— that is to say, both the Transkeian Government and ourselves—will solve those problems because we are determined to make a success of this very important and natural constitutional undertaking of the Transkei.

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

No. I have dealt long enough with that hon. member.

The hon. the Minister need not be so rude. [Interjections.]

The hon. member pretended that he did not know how workers from the Transkei would be dealt with in future. However, I can reply to this by merely asking him a question.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Carletonville allowed to tell me to shut up?

Order! The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Carletonville must please cease making interjections. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Does the hon. member for Umhlatuzana not know that many other independent countries, some of them on our very borders, have labour treaties? Does he not know that we also have our own labour laws? We also have our representatives who take part in all the negotiations which are necessary with a view to the acquisition of labour forces from the homelands. My department and the Department of Foreign Affairs are always involved. The hon. member surely knows that. Does he not regard this to be also the future pattern for the Transkei?

[Inaudible.]

Well, the hon. members says he knows this. Is it for that reason that he asks about it? That is a very peculiar way of going about things in this House.

*Mr. Chairman, I should like to say more about a matter which has been receiving considerable attention, especially in recent times. People like to say that there must be changes in the White areas, all kinds of changes. There is a lot of talk about new policies that are necessary and about adjustments that have to be made. However, the things that are said and written are mostly aimed at sensation rather than at obtaining real and positive changes. I believe that one may say without fear of contradiction that the upward surge, the surge ahead, the source of energy which is an inherent part of the Government’s policy, finds expression in its natural course. It is a surge which brings many important new initiatives in its wake, new and rejuvenating initiatives in the administration of Bantu affairs and in the whole approach to nations in South Africa. This is something which is completely natural, which is very important, and which is a spontaneous offshoot of the policy of this Government, just as new shoots are spontaneously produced by established plants. This is something people often do not understand correctly.

Many people speak of change, but are still under the impression that things must change in accordance with their wishes. If things change in a different way, however, they do not regard this as constituting a change and they do not welcome it either. After all, a new initiative is not like the grafting of a shoot on a branch of a completely alien plant. Such an act could only result in a freak.

Too many people are merely intent on sensation, so they do not have the approach required for noticing the spontaneous process of growth which is taking place. The essence of the Government’s policy has been touched on several times here this afternoon. The essence of this policy is the recognition of the various national identities which exist in South Africa. I referred to this very matter in a speech in 1966, ten years ago. Where we have the recognition of national identity, therefore, and consequently the identification of every Black man and every Black woman in South Africa with his or her own nation, we have a situation which will help to enable every nation in South Africa, every Black nation, in South Africa, to experience its own and separate development in the future. In this way, all the individual members of every nation can be involved in the development of that nation and can have ties with their own nation and their own homeland. This is the separate development we speak of. This is the separate development of separate nations. It is a universal phenomenon throughout the world. It is not unique to South Africa. Nor is it unique for us as Whites. Every individual Bantu person in South Africa must therefore be regarded as a human being who has to live in a particular context, just as I live in a particular context, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana lives in his particular context, in a context of similar beings, and in a community of people with related interests. The context is the nation. The community takes the form of communion with one’s fellow-nationals. This is common knowledge. This is why it is wrong always to speak in such a superficial way of the Bantu on the farm or the Bantu in the cities or the Bantu in the White areas, as if they were the only Bantu people and existed in a vacuum.

Surely they must always be seen as having a relationship with their nation and their community, not as people within the physical and actual immediacy of place, but as people related to the living, pulsating organism of each of their nations. In another debate we had in this House in 1970 when the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act was introduced, I went into this matter in great detail and I concluded by saying that for each of us, in this Chamber and in South Africa, there is a very important task we have to perform in regard to the various nations. This is the task which I saw and expounded in 1966 and which we are still engaged in. It is the task of each of us to recognize each Bantu person for what he is: a living being and a member of a particular nation.

To what nation do the English belong?

To the English nation, the British nation. Furthermore, it is our task to help the Bantu persons to live as members of their nations. And when the Bantu persons have left their homelands or the concentrated ranks of their own peoples, when they are far from their national territories, we have an even greater duty to help them here in White area so that they may live and thrive as members of their respective nations, the more so if we are using them as labour or for any other purpose here in the White area. This national awareness, this identity of every Bantu nation, this identification of the individual with his own nation, are very important concepts in terms of our policy. They are concepts which are developing and growing more and more spontaneously these days. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Von Brandis is amused by things, he is free to go and he need not bother me and interrupt me here. I would have thought that such a diplomatic man as the hon. member would be able to behave a little better. Sir, the hon. member is even committing plagiarism now, if he knows what plagiarism is. I say this national awareness, this identity of every Bantu person, the tendency to identify himself with his own nation, are concepts that are beginning to arise and to grow more and more spontaneously from our policy regarding the various nations.

Our thinking within this upsurge in the policy opens up new perspectives to us which emerge as natural phases in this further growth of our policy. That is why we must constantly ensure that all measures, all services and all actions in connection with the Bantu persons who are present here in the White area and who come here can be accounted for and explained in terms of those Bantu persons as members of their particular nations. This is where the citizenship of each Bantu person becomes such a vitally important matter. This is why I told the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon that I considered the Bantu person’s membership of his nation to be actually more important than the section 10 privileges because it has a potential for more dynamic future development than the section 10 provisions. Seen in that light, we have no great objections of principle against the presence of Bantu persons here in White South Africa, especially if they identify themselves with their own specific Black nation. In fact, such Bantu persons who identify themselves with their own nations are much more welcome here in the White area than those who deny or hide their relationship with a Black nation of their own. This I have often said before. To those who acknowledge their own specific national context, we must grant more and more privileges here in the White area. Preference must be given to them in regard to available jobs, for example. They must be protected by conditions of service. They must be provided with housing. That is why we introduced it into this new development of the home-ownership scheme. They may have dependants with them under certain circumstances. They may have greater freedom of movement to and within the White area. Preference should be given to them in the White area with regard to all kinds of facilities, such as hospitalization, transport, schools, sports, etc. It should be very clear, too, that when a Bantu homeland becomes independent, an event we are going to experience and which can take place quite naturally in terms of our policy, the citizens of that independent country should not be declared to be “aliens”, as the expression is in the case of other independent African countries. A new concept will have to be introduced and implemented in the Republic’s national position in which they will be favoured above those Bantu persons from African states that are not former homelands of ours. We shall have to ensure this to them, a position which is no less favourable than that of citizens of a Bantu homeland which has not yet become independent. And if, after independence, a Bantu homeland deprives its own people living in the Republic of South Africa of their own citizenship or refuses to grant it to them, the Government of the Republic will be forced to consider very seriously whether people from such a homeland are welcome in our country, so that they may not be rendered stateless here through the actions of their own homelands.

Those Bantu persons in the White area who have been identified in this way as being members of the various Black nations can and must be able to give expression to their own communal life here as fellow-nationals in their own national context. And it is a good thing that they are able to participate here in our White area, as they have been doing all these years, in elections and in all kinds of political activities of their own Governments and of their own country. But greater content must be given—and this is very important—to the organizations they have and operate here in the White area. We must even try to strengthen their ties from the White area with their own Governments and their own communities and their own homelands. There is a system already in terms of which homeland governments appoint representatives in White areas. We call them “deputies”. This system has very great potential for development in order to help promote even further the interests of the Bantu groups in the White area. The system can also be adjusted within the framework even of our Bantu Affairs Administration Boards in order to give a more concrete shape to and to produce more effective results in connection with the further development of our policy, particularly in connection with the organization of the Bantu’s affairs in the White areas. It goes without saying that there must be more opportunities within such an expanded organizational system for dialogue between those representing the Republic’s authorities and the Bantu people. This, in brief, is the essence of the possibilities, Sir, the way in which changes can be made within the framework of our policy in respect of the Bantu people in the White area, and this can hold many advantages.

Finally, I want to emphasize that there is no solution to be found in combining opposite principles, as so many hon. members on the other side so often do. There is no solution to be found in combining conflicting political systems, for this is just as undesirable and just as wrong in politics as planting one’s mangolds in between rows of beetroot, which Langenhoven said would not do. There are things which cannot be reconciled in political policies, and the great mistake we have to witness in this House is that too many hon. members—I had something to say about this to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana last year—want to graft integration techniques upon our policy of separate development and then take us to task in terms of this view because matters do not develop under our policy as they should in terms of their policy. This is an unsound approach and it will get us nowhere. This is what Langenhoven meant by planting mangolds in between one’s rows of beetroot.

What about the sport policy?

There is no such thing as a sport integration policy.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has replied to the debate thus far in his own inimical sort of way. He has obviously enjoyed laying down the ideological law and rubbing some members’ noses in the political dust. There are certain things arising out of the Minister’s reply which I believe require attention. The first one arises out of his reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in connection with the labour situation after the Transkei has become independent. The hon. the Minister told the House that there were such things as labour treaties and that we had labour treaties with other neighbouring countries. Does the hon. the Minister consider something in the nature of the Mozambique Convention, a convention which costs this country R100 million in gold alone? Is that what he has in mind? Because this is the country which probably supplies the largest amount of labour to South Africa, because it is part of the Republic at the present time. Is this what the Minister is considering? In the same reply the same hon. minister, dealt with the question of citizenship. It is clear that there must be a difference of opinion in the party on the other side of the House, or the Minister had not been listening to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, who told us, in no uncertain terms, that we were wrong in raising this question of citizenship, because there was a difference between citizenship and nationality. The hon. the Minister, however, gives us a totally different reply. He says that the citizens of the Transkei will be those citizens of the Transkei who are citizens of the Transkei today. He has not differentiated between nationality and citizenship, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein West has, and I believe that we should have a further explanation of exactly what the Government is going to do.

In reply to the hon. member for Griqualand East’s query in regard to the land demands of the Chief Minister of the Transkei and his Cabinet in southern Natal and other areas and the enquiries of the hon. member for Houghton in the same direction, the Minister’s reply was totally inadequate at a time such as this. His reply was that the demands made by the Transkei were like the poor—they will always be with us and that the reply was also like the poor—it will always be the same. The hon. the Minister is talking about a country that is going to receive independence by legislation, as he has told us, that will be passed by this House during this session of Parliament. The matter will then be taken further by their Legislative Assembly. To get a reply of this nature with regard to the demands that are being made by a country that is going to be given independence is totally inadequate and unacceptable to this country. What are the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet going to do if those demands are taken to UNO or to the OAU? Has he a reply to give them? These things must be sorted out before the day of independence. Has the hon. the Minister heard of a place called “the Gaza strip”? Has he heard of a place called “the Sinai peninsula”? Has he heard of a place called “the Polish corridor”? Land demands are things that must be settled, and settled clearly, before the final map of independence is drawn.

I want to go further in regard to the consolidation of the homelands that has been proceeded with so fast during the 1970s. The Act which is being used to purchase the land to consolidate was passed in 1936. We are told that we did very little during the 12 years that we remained in power after the passing of that Act, but for five of those years we were involved in a war. I accuse that side of the House of sitting still from 1948 to 1970—a period of 22 years—when they could gradually have purchased the land provided for in that Act and could have created less misery and less friction in this country. The declared land, we were told yesterday by the hon. member for Lydenburg, will cost R1 000 million to purchase. With the allocation which has been made in this budget, an amount of R25 to R30 million—without allowing for inflation and increased land values over the years—it will take 50 years to purchase that land if we go on at this rate. What has happened in those areas which have been released is that they have become frozen economically. The Government has created a friction there, because the Black people know the areas are released and they want them.

White people do not stay the same age. They grow older; some of them get sick; some of them want to and have to retire, and some of them die. What happens to their properties? Nothing! In my constituency I have sick people who wish to retire, but there is only one willing purchaser for their land, namely the South African Bantu Trust. For that reason they have to sit there and eke out a miserable existence. I have widows in my constituency who live alone, but yet have to carry on farming, because there is only one purchaser for their land and that purchaser does not have the money. These things must be sorted out. The land of these people must be purchased and they must be assisted. One cannot force sick people to carry on farming, when in normal circumstances, they would have sold their properties to retire somewhere near a hospital. This is happening day after day throughout our country. No wonder the poor hon. Deputy Minister in charge of consolidation always has a harassed look on his face, because at least he is human and he knows what is going on. The Government has over-proclaimed in these five years instead of spreading it over the foregoing 22 years. This is the situation at the moment, and I want to make a few positive suggestions to improve it. Why does the Government not give the people who wish to retire, full bond and pay them the interest so that they can retire? Many of them would be happy to accept it, instead of sitting there waiting in the suspense of not knowing what is going to happen. I believe that in conjunction with the S.A. Agricultural Union the whole question of which areas should be purchased, must be carefully gone into. A priority list should be drawn up which is to be based on the depressed gold price so that we know it can be met. This should be done as soon as possible and it should be published so that people can know how long they are going to be concerned with this problem. The hon. the Minister should ask the Land Bank and to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to make special facilities available to the young farmers in those areas so that they can re-establish themselves in other areas. There are cases of sons who wish to move out, but they cannot do so before the property of their fathers is purchased. These are real cases and something has to be done about it.

In the few minutes left to me, I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he would tell this House whether any discussions have taken place between him and his Department and the Ciskeian Government in regard to the establishment of the proposed Committees town. Is there no possibility of the capital of the Ciskei being established at Alice or at Peddie and of the expansion taking place at one of those places which is far more viable than committees. This matter has been going on for a long time and is creating a lot of friction in the eastern Cape. We should like to have a final decision as to what is going to happen.

With regard to the Fingo Village in Grahamstown, which has been proclaimed a Coloured area, we have always felt that there should have been an urban renewal scheme. The housing situation in Grahamstown at the present moment, whether the hon. the Minister decides to go on with Committees or not, is a very serious situation. It is so serious that through lack of funds the Bantu Administration Board, which is doing its best in that area and which is an exemplary board amongst many bad ones, has had to establish site and service on top of the old cemetery which is adjacent to the Fingo Village. This is a dangerous situation, because we have the 1820 Settlers national monument in that constituency and many visitors from all over the world come there. Grahamstown should be a showcase for Bantu urban housing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany comes from an area where land is being purchased for consolidation purposes. The hon. member made the mistake of saying that we had been sleeping from 1948 to 1970 as far as the matter of purchasing land was concerned. In 1936 the Government of the day decided to purchase 7¼ million morgen of land. When the final consolidation proposals were presented to this House last year, six million of the 7¼ million morgen of land had been purchased. The larger part of this was purchased during the régime of the NP. This means that only 1¼ million morgen was outstanding at the time. In terms of the consolidation proposals we made certain changes in order to bring about a more satisfactory consolidation. This involved approximately one million ha of land. Therefore, the statement which the hon. member made, viz. that the NP had done nothing since 1948 to purchase land, is not at all true. Less than a sixth of the amount of land decided on in 1936, still has to be purchased.

The hon. member repeated today that a list of priorities should be drawn up. He said this should not be done on the basis of a high gold price, but on the basis of a low gold price. What the hon. member means by this, only he will know. A list of priorities means one thing: It starts at the top and ends at the bottom. Whether one draws it up with a high gold price or with a low gold price in mind, the order will remain exactly the same. That is why I want to tell the hon. member that we have certain norms and criteria which we take into account when we decide which land is to be purchased. I should like to point out these norms to the hon. member. There is something else too, which he, as a practising farmer, ought to know. When one draws up a programme involving living things, the programme is subject to change. If he as a farmer were to tell me that he drew up a programme the first day he started farming, and that he was still keeping to that programme, then I would tell him that he was a rare phenomenon. Something of that kind simply does not exist. However, this is what the UP expects of us. Because they are a stagnant party, they want us to draw up a programme in 1970 and keep to it till the end of time. A programme is, after all, subject to change.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is aware of the fact that both his predecessor, Mr. Raubenheimer, and the Bantu Affairs Commission have said on numerous occasions that there would be a list of priorities published in regard to the area?

The very thing I am explaining to the hon. member for Albany at the moment is how the list of priorities is drawn up. At the same time I am explaining what the norms and criteria are which we take into account. It is only a hide-bound person who adopts the attitude that an effective and efficient programme should not be subject to change. The first thing hon. members should take into consideration is that the execution of a programme of this kind is dependent on the available funds. Surely this is so. Can hon. members, if they want to be realistic, tell me what funds will be available in 1980? One can only draw up a programme like this for the future if one knows what the imponderables are, inter alia the available funds.

Nobody asks for that.

Sir, this is what the hon. member is doing now. He said every man should know when he was going to be bought out. Now I want to tell the hon. member what criteria we apply in determining these priorities. The first group of factors is the requirements of the South African Bantu Trust. In other words, regard must be had to the question of where we need land for the resettlement of people, people such as landless chiefs, or people who are in wrong locations and consequently have to be resettled. This includes the implementation of the policy of the National Party. But even this is subject to change, because it happens, for instance, that a chief approaches his homeland Government with the request to settle in the homeland. Such a man may have been living in a certain area for many years, and it could be that he never intended moving. Then, however, he tells his homeland Government that he has learnt that land is available in the homeland, land which has been purchased or is to be purchased and which will consequently become available, and that he wants to settle with his people in that area, which is included in the consolidation plans and in which people of his tribe are living. Then the circumstances change, because then it is a case of people who have come forward with a new need, one of which we were unaware before. If people wish to leave the area in which they are living and it is part of our plan to move the people of that area, we cannot wait and tell them: “We have planned to move you in 1980 only. If the people are ready to move, and it is possible to move them, then why not purchase that land?

In other words, your undertakings are worthless?

No, Sir. In the interest of the smooth administration of the country, and having regard to the interests of the Whites on the one hand and the interests of the Black people on the other hand, one must see to things of this kind. One must have some flexibility in one’s programme. After all, an effective programme should be adaptable. I want to mention another example. The voters of the hon. member for Albany had offers last year, but they declined those offers. Now, we have waited until those people decided some day to accept those offers? Our next step was to approach the next area and to make an offer to those people. Surely this is the way to act if one wants to be effective and efficient in one’s administration when meeting an obstacle.

Offers were made to two of my voters.

Sir, it is not only the voters of that hon. member who received offers; offers were also made to the voters of the hon. member for King William’s Town. When those offers were made, some of the voters did not accept them. Then we went to that hon. member’s constituency, where offers were made. That resulted in the voters of the hon. member for King William’s Town thinking—the UP is having trouble in this regard at the moment—that the hon. member for Albany is a better member than the hon. member for King William’s Town. [Interjections.] This is the problem they have to contend with at the moment. Sir, if people say that they are not prepared to accept our offers at the present time, then we have to go to the next area. That is why a programme of this kind must have some flexibility.

Sir, I want to mention another consideration to you, and this concerns the interests of the Trust. When we see a development in progress and the land concerned is included in the released area, surely it is normal to decide whether we are going to purchase the land at that stage or whether we should wait until the development has taken place. This is another series of interests. Then, Sir, there is a third consideration, to which the hon. member referred. It is the interests of the voters themselves, the problems which exists among the people. For example, there are problems of people who are getting on in years, financial problems, etc. In this regard I want to say that my office is open to these people, so that they may come and put their problems to us.

Like the purchases at Port St Johns?

No, Sir, I want to go further and say that the personal and private problems of those people will be treated confidentially. I shall not do what those hon. members do by telling the world: “Mr. A owes Mr. B so much money, and therefore Mr. A should be bought out”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the main point in my speech, I first want to react to an aspect raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana yesterday. Apparently he maintained that it was a fundamental standpoint of the United Party that facilities for land ownership should be created as soon as possible for Bantu permanently resident as it is called, in White urban areas. I should like him to tell me whether he applies that principle—viz. the right of Bantu who have been living in White areas for years or decades, to own property—to all Bantu in White areas? To illustrate this point, I want to ask whether he is prepared to grant Bantu families, who have been living for generations on a family farm in the vicinity of Heatonville, land ownership on that farm? I am now referring to Bantu in the rural areas. He is shaking his head. In other words, according to him, Bantu living in White rural areas are not entitled to own land on principle. However, Bantu living in urban White areas, are, according to the UP, entitled to land ownership. How do they reconcile the two standpoints? If they want to continue with propaganda of that kind, they will have to meet at some time or other and decide what their policy is concerning Bantu who have also been living on White farms for generations.

The actual theme of my speech concerns the establishment of industries in the Bantu homelands. In the nature of the historical circumstances there are very few Bantu who are already developed to the extent of being able to start manufacturing industries in the Bantu homelands. With the assistance of the various State corporations—the BIC, the XDC and others—R21 million has already been invested between 1960 and 1975 in aid to various Bantu entrepreneurs. Eighty-six per cent of this was spent on commercial enterprises. In the nature of the matter this is to be expected, because it is easier to establish a commercial enterprise than a manufacturing enterprise. Twelver per cent for services and only 2% is for manufacturing businesses. Therefore, the indication is that the Bantu as yet lack the capacity to be able to establish by themselves manufacturing enterprises on a large scale.

In the light of the programme for autonomy and independence of the Bantu homelands, it is, to my mind, one of the most important needs that the economy of the homelands be further developed. Therefore, it is necessary and desirable that industries of this kind, which are highly labour intensive, be encouraged with the assistance of Whites both within and outside South Africa, so that industries may be established in the homelands. One of the factors which hamper the creation of industrial areas in the homelands is the lack of infrastructure. One of the major shortcomings is the lack of means of transport, and here I refer, inter alia, to the Railways, one of the essential elements in the creation of the infrastructure necessary for the establishment of industries in industrial areas in the Bantu homelands. At present there is a tendency in the transport industry in general to switch to containerization. This applies to marine transport in particular, but rail transport, too, is switching to it now. Therefore, it is to my mind a practical possibility that industrial areas may be established in areas where there are no adjacent railway lines. It will not be necessary to have siding facilities to the factory premises, because containers may be conveyed by means of container trucks. Therefore we can now give consideration through the planning of the various corporations and the IDC, taking into consideration that it is in fact possible to establish industries in Bantu homelands even though a railway line or siding facilities will not necessarily be immediately available.

For many years this has been United Party policy.

In my constituency and in the vicinity of eZakheni, in the Bantu area,—i.e. the proposed Bantu area part of which has already been purchased—but on the border of the White area, there is an area which, to my mind, is most suitable for the establishment of industries, because there will be three greater Bantu settlements or housing schemes. There are eZakheni, Limehill-Vergelegen area and the area which is now being planned at Wesselsnek where there will be an intensive and a densely populated Bantu settlement. To my mind it is desirable that industries, and especially labour intensive industries, be established there. The idea of establishing border industrial areas in White areas is a good one, but for the sake of the economy of the Bantu areas, I think it is desirable for industries to be established on a larger scale in the Bantu homelands.

One of the major limiting factors in this regard is one of which Bantu homeland leaders ought to take note. I hear that various industrialists from South Africa and overseas considered establishing industries in KwaZulu, for instance, but they were subsequently discouraged by the attitude of the homeland leader and, in this particular case, the leader of KwaZulu. They were discouraged by the attitude of the homeland leader as regards White/Bantu relations. If Bantu homeland leaders want development to take place in their area, they should certainly bear in mind that they could play a very positive or negative role as regards making development possible or hindering it. Depending on the role they play, they themselves will contribute towards development there or they will be held responsible for the absence of development. Therefore, I want to request the homeland leaders to play a more positive role in this regard and in many cases, to be careful what they say, before they decide to make certain statements merely for the sake of politics, be it international or internal politics of tension. It is one of the major factors in the development of southern Africa that there will be evenly-balanced economic development in the homelands as well as in White South Africa. From the nature of the matter there will have to be the closest economic co-operation in future between White and Bantu areas. However, for this purpose absolute co-operation from the Bantu leaders is needed. They are, after all, the only people who will gain by it, seeing that White South Africa can look after itself. Therefore, the question arises whether the Bantu leaders also wish to play a responsible role in seeing to the development of their areas.

Mr. Chairman, the questions posed by the hon. member for Klip River to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana are so childish that I believe they hardly even call for a reply. I do not propose dealing with them in detail. All he really asked is what our policy is in regard to the Black people employed on farms. He wanted to know whether in terms of our policy they would be granted home ownership on farms. What an utterly ridiculous question! [Interjections.] Our policy clearly lays down that in the urban areas we will give home ownership to the Blacks. On the farms a relationship exists between employer and employee. It is not necessary to give home ownership on the farms; if the farms are situated near the urban areas, perhaps the Black people can live in their own homes and come to work on the farms. [Interjections.] I do not have any more time to discuss this matter.

At the moment we in this country are facing a serious economic position. I believe it is right that we should look very carefully at the money being voted for this particular department for the ensuing year. If one looks at the Vote, one finds that the largest single sum of money being asked for by the department, falls under item N and concerns the grant-in-aid to the South African Bantu Trust Fund. The sum to be voted amounts to approximately R209 million. In the breakdown of this sum of money, it appears that some R132 million will be used for the development of the Bantu areas in the Republic. It is well known that these particular funds are in the main allotted to the various corporations which have been established under the provisions of the Act for the promotion of the economic development of the homelands. The three corporations which exist at present and which have been utilizing these funds for the past years are, of course, the Bantu Investment Corporation, which deals only with the homelands apart from the Ciskei and the Transkei, the Xhosa Development Corporation, which deals with the Ciskei and the Transkei, and the Bantu Mining Corporation.

I want to deal only with the XDC at the moment. If one looks at the reports which have been tabled by the XDC, the latest of which covers the period which ended on 31 March 1975, one finds that in 1973 the share capital of the XDC was R33,7 million. In 1974, one year later, the share capital had increased to R40,2 million and in 1975 it increased by R23 million to R63,6 million. In other words, it appears that the allocation from the S. A. Bantu Trust to the XDC over the two years was of the order of R7,5 million in 1974 and R23,4 million in 1975. However, nowhere in the accounts can I find any indication at this time of what the allocation was from the S.A. Bantu Trust to the XDC for the year 1975-’76. It appears, therefore, that we shall have to wait for another year for the next report of the XDC to be issued before we find out how much has actually been allocated for that year. We should also like to know from the hon. the Minister what amount of the R132 million to be voted will be allocated to the XDC for the ensuing year. We do know, however, that there has been a proliferation of these corporations. We know that in November last year three more corporations were set up, viz. the Qwaqwa Development Corporation, the Shangaan Development Corporation and the Venda Development Corporation.

We have also heard that the XDC is now going to be split into the Transkei Development Corporation and the Ciskei Development Corporation, so that, in point of fact, we now virtually have seven different development corporations for developing the Bantu homelands. Out of the amount of R132 million all these corporations will have to be allotted something. We in this House, however, do not know what was allocated in the last financial year, nor do we know what amounts are going to be allocated in this ensuing year. However, every one of these corporations will receive millions of rand to spend, money which is provided by the public of South Africa but over which the public of South Africa will have little, if any, control. The public will have no say in the allotment or use of these funds. To me, and certainly to all of us on this side of the House, it seems totally wrong to allow corporations which are not functioning for profit—in terms of the Act these corporations should be non-profit bodies—and which are using exclusively public funds allocated to them by this Parliament, to distribute and use these moneys without the control by the Auditor-General of South Africa.

We who know the Transkei and who have seen the vast projects entered into there by the XDC will know what I am talking about. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has recently visited the Transkei. I doubt very much whether other hon. members on that side of the House have recently visited the Transkei. They decided not to fight an election in the Transkei. I do not know why. If they had, they would have seen what was going on in the Transkei. I know that there is a little flea on our back, but we shall get rid of that on 5 May. Those who have been to the Transkei will have seen what the people there see daily. In fact, if one were to read the reports of the Transkei Development Corporation or of the Ciskei Development Corporation, one would see that to provide housing for the Blacks in Umtata and Butterworth the sum of R16 million a year will be required. To provide housing and other facilities for Whites in Umtata and Butterworth is also going to cost R16 million a year. Where is all this money going to come from? How do we know that these projects are going to be properly controlled? Are the works going to be put out to tender? Is the lowest tender going to be accepted? What about the ancillary requirements of a vast organization like this? We cannot tell, from the attenuated reports tabled in this House, what amount of money is going to be spent.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that it is absolutely essential that the powers granted in terms of section 42 of the Exchequer and Audit Act should be implemented in order to investigate the operations of these seven corporations. I ask the hon. the Minister to give careful consideration now to this particular issue, particularly in view of the fact that three new corporations are being formed. I presume that the XDC is going to be disbanded and two new corporations formed. In that regard I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to introduce a Bill in order to disband that corporation, because it is laid down in the Act that if the hon. the Minister wishes to disband an organization of that nature, he needs an Act of Parliament to do so.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the question of questions. The hon. the Minister will remember that I put a question for written reply on the Order Paper, a question concerning the number of businesses and properties which have been offered to the trust for sale by Whites in the Transkei during 1975. Notice of this question was published on the Order Paper on 12 March. In terms of the rules, when no reply had been received within seven days the question was converted into one for oral reply. On 26 March—14 days after the question had come into the hands of the hon. the Minister—a reply was given in this House. You know what the reply was, Mr. Chairman, namely that records were not kept in the form asked for and that the information was not readily available. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to blame the hon. member too much for not knowing precisely what progress has been made in this matter. However, the hon. member referred to seven ethnic corporations. Of course, there are eight at the moment. For that reason I say I do not take it amiss of the hon. member, because I can appreciate that the inert UP will never be able to keep pace with the rapid rate at which the NP is developing South Africa.

To waste our money. [Interjections.]

I want to point out to the hon. member that, as he has learnt before, there is the Bophuthatswana National Development Corporation, the Sjangaan-Tsonga Development Corporation, the Venda Development Corporation and the Qwa Qwa Development Corporation. These four corporations are already functioning. Their boards of directors have already been appointed and they are proceeding with their activities. The Transkei and the Ciskei corporations were established on 1 April and certain matters will have to be finalized before they will start functioning. In South West Africa there are the Okavango and the Owambo Corporations, which will start functioning with effect from 1 May. The hon. member also referred to the auditing of the books. Regulations have been promulgated by the State President, regulations which ensure control over these corporations. The books are audited by private firms appointed and approved by the Minister. Reports on these corporations are laid upon the Table of this House annually. [Interjections.] I am in the process of telling the hon. member that the position of these corporations is the same as that of the other State corporations. Why then is the hon. member so concerned about these corporations? Is he also concerned about Iscor and Escom and other State corporations? Why is the hon. member singling out these corporations? I am asking the hon. member for what reason he is doing it. [Interjections.]

Is the Vote of that Minister under discussion now?

No, his Vote is not under discussion now, but the hon. member has never done it before. [Interjections.] Sir, I shall tell the hon. members that the real reason why this is so, is because they do not want development to take place in the homelands. [Interjections.] That is so. It is also the case with this little party sitting here. They do not want development to take place. Any development taking place in the homelands is a thorn in their flesh.

And a nail in your coffin.

Yes, and a nail in their coffin. They like to pretend that the homelands cannot develop, that they are not viable and that they are doomed to failure and for that reason separate development is also doomed to failure. For that reason we have had this fantastic phenomenon today as well as during the past few days, i.e. that they seize upon an imaginary, minor dispute about citizenship in an attempt to belittle separate development. Sir, this is something they desire in their heart of hearts, that they should live to see the day when separate development should cease to exist so that they could come along with their policy.

Sir, I want to tell those hon. members that they can forget about that. These ethnic corporations are based on firm foundations; they are functioning and Blacks serve on their boards. It was my privilege to meet one of them. One of them, who is a businessman in the White urban areas now, told me that since he became involved with the ethnic corporation, he discovered the enormous potential there was in the homeland and what possibilities there were for him. He said he was no longer going to remain in the White area; he was going to launch his own enterprise in the homeland and help to develop his own fatherland. I want to tell the hon. member that the results which have been achieved indicate that the economies of these territories are growing, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Cradock. When we consider the features of an economy, of a developing economy, these features are reflected by the economy of the homelands in the sense that the relative contribution of agriculture in relation to the national product is decreasing, in spite of the fact that agriculture itself is increasing, as is happening in South Africa and in developed Western countries. Agriculture itself is growing, but its relative contribution to the gross domestic product is decreasing. The contribution of the private market sector is increasing and the contribution of the maintenance sector is decreasing. A process of urbanization is to be seen in the homelands and this is largely due to the development undertaken by the South African Bantu Trust, the homeland Governments, the corporations and other bodies acting as agents in the homeland. As a result of this development brought about by the corporations and the employment opportunities created there—the real value is not only to be found in the number of employment opportunities created by the corporations, but really in the source of income and the numerous activities it entertains, inter alia, services which have to be provided, schools and shops that have to be erected and all kinds of other activities which flow from this—the homelands reflect the same tendency as that of any other growing economy, i.e. a tendency towards urbanization. It is a fact that between 1960 and 1970 the urban homelands population increased by more than 160%, while the urban Bantu population in White South Africa increased by approximately 28%. This is due to the economic strength which has manifested itself and has been developed in the homelands. As far as the corporations are concerned, the South African Bantu Trust is allowed to be a shareholder in the ethnic corporations, but in the Bantu legislation introduced in this House this year, provision has been made for another corporation, for example, the Bantu Investment Corporation or the Xhosa Development Corporation, to be a shareholder in the ethnic corporation. After all, hon. members opposite were told on that occasion that it is the intention for the Xhosa Development Corporation and the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Bantu Mining Corporation to disappear eventually and for their functions to be taken over by a co-ordinating body, a body which will for the most part be of a financing nature.

Will they be subject to the Auditor-General?

Yes, it will for the most part be of a financing nature. Every homeland corporation will then be charged with the development of its specific homeland and the people of that homeland are represented in the corporation. At this stage substantial powers have been granted to these ethnic corporations, and these corporations have great potential. Ordinary business loans are undertaken by these ethnic corporations; likewise, the erection of business premises is being undertaken at this stage. The ethnic corporations also have an interest in the building trade, in enterprises of the Bantu Investment Corporation, such as the brewing and distribution of beer, training—apart from specialized training—and also financing of farmers and agricultural co-operative societies. In other words, matters relating to the agency system, matters such as transport and other matters mainly in the national interest, are to remain with the well-known corporations, the XDC and the BIC; as matters develop, these will in due course be transferred to an increasing extent to the ethnic corporations, except in the Transkei. Virtually all these functions will, from the outset, be taken over by the Transkei ethnic corporations, because there is no sense in handing over certain of these functions to the corporation at this stage while the remainder is handed over when it becomes independent in a few months’ time. For that reason virtually all the functions of the Transkei ethnic corporations, those functions which a corporation is capable of managing, will even now, from the outset, be handed over to the corporation.

How much money do they receive?

I shall give an indication of the amount of money these corporations will have at their disposal. In the first place, they receive all the share capital of the existing corporations, i.e. the assets of those corporations which have already been established within the specific homeland. Those assets will be transferred to the ethnic corporations. In the case of Bophuthatswana this corporation will receive assets to the value of R8 million. In addition, the Bophuthatswana National Development Corporation of Bophuthatswana will also receive a grant-in-aid from the Treasury. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister replied in detail to the hon. member for East London City as far as corporations are concerned. I also want to discuss corporations this afternoon, and the corporation I chose, is the Bantu Mining Corporation, which was established for the homelands in 1969. Mineral rights in the Bantu homelands entail a great deal for Bantu peoples in the various territories. The real position is that the right to prospect for and exploit precious metals—such as gold, silver, platinum and metals belonging to the platinum group and precious stones such as diamonds—and natural oil in the homelands, is vested in the State. No one else is allowed to prospect for or exploit minerals in the homelands, unless he has first obtained the written consent of the Minister of Mines. As far as base metals and minerals, excluding source materials, in the homelands are concerned, the position is that the right of prospecting and exploitation is vested in the South African Bantu Trust. The Bantu Mining Corporation acts as an agent of the South African Bantu Trust as far as mining activities in the homelands is concerned. Prospecting and mining rights existing in the homelands because the right to dispose thereof is vested in the Republic of South Africa, will be protected by means of an inter-State agreement when the homeland becomes independent. This is how the Act reads at present as far as the exploitation of minerals in the homelands is concerned.

As I have said, the Bantu Mining Corporation was established in 1969. Its objectives are, in the first place, to find, to develop and to mine mineral deposits which can be exploited economically; in the second place, to provide Black entrepreneurs with technical advice and capital to start their own mining enterprises; in the third place, to persuade White mining enterprises to extend their prospecting activities for mineral deposits to the homelands. An enormous task is waiting in future, but I envisage a most promising future for mining in the homelands. The fourth objective is to equip Blacks on a technical level to play an increasingly important part in prospecting activities for and the exploitation of minerals.

The Bantu Mining Corporation was established to develop, stimulate and promote mining in the Bantu homelands. The intention is to develop and utilize the mineral deposits in the homelands to the best advantage of the local inhabitants, i.e. the Blacks themselves, and at the same time, to provide for more employment opportunities for Bantu. Attempts are also being made to involve the Bantu more directly in mining. So far the Bantu have not been involved to any great extent in this industry. The Bantu will be trained to be able to serve on a very high level, even on the managerial level, ultimately, and to hold managerial positions. To this end White entrepreneurs and bodies with adequate capital and technical know-how at their disposal are being afforded the opportunity to play an active role to prospect for, develop and exploit these mineral deposits provided control over these mineral deposits will not be vested in such bodies permanently. This is very important. Consequently, mining houses as well as private persons are encouraged to participate in the mining industry of the homelands on conditions which will be to the benefit of the local inhabitants on the medium and long term. It is also the policy of the corporations to participate in the prospecting for and exploitation of mineral resources in conjunction with the Bantu entrepreneurs, wherever it is possible to do so. They also serve to provide the Bantu entrepreneur with expert advice and, if economically justified, to finance him. A further task of the corporation is to undertake prospecting work, to co-ordinate mining activities in the Bantu homelands, and to see to it that these activities take place according to the conditions set out in the prospecting permits and mine-leasing agreements which have been issued. A large number of mines are operating in the homelands today. I briefly want to mention a few of these for the information of hon. members: In Lebowa 18 mines are operating at this stage; in Bophuthatswana, 25; in the Venda territory, five; in Gazankulu, three; and KwaZulu, nine; Damaraland, two; Kaokoland, one. There are altogether 63 of these mines. Let us consider in which way we can make this major industry even more viable to involve even more labour in the homelands. Let us consider the number of Blacks already employed in mining activities. At the mine in Lebowa, 16 200 non-Whites are being employed and they earn a total of R4½ million per year. This can still be expanded enormously. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the very interesting and informative speech delivered by the hon. member who has just sat down. However, I do not intend following up his arguments. In fact, I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the Black people living in Sandton and in the Alexandra Township. This, as most hon. members know, is a township to the north of Johannesburg adjacent to both Johannesburg and Sandton. This township is being administered by the West Rand Administration Board, and the resettlement there is undertaken by the Bantu Resettlement Board. In order for the House to appreciate the problem which I am raising, I would like to give hon. members some statistics. The Black population of Alexandra is 38 500, those who are legally there. It is estimated that there are a further 12 000 people living there who are not legally resident in the area. This makes a total of some 50 000 people living in Alexandra. The Sandton Black population is 17 075. In addition to this we estimate that there are some 8 000 people in Sandton, outside Alexandra, who are not legally living there, but who are present in the area. This makes a total of 25 000. We are therefore discussing a community of some 75 000 people, of whom fully one third live there outside the bounds of the law of South Africa.

Alexandra has been a residential area for many years providing the north-eastern areas of Johannesburg with labour and services and providing the Blacks with homes. Some years ago a policy switch dictated that Alexandra should be reduced to a dormitory hostel area and that resident families be resettled some 25 km away in Thembisa, or some 30 km away in Soweto. Vast single-sex hostels have been erected and mainly filled. This policy change involved the taking away, as members will know, of home-ownership rights from people who enjoyed those very rights for many years—despite a critical housing shortage, which persists to this day. Alexandra has always been a poor area, housing poor people. It has never been a plush community of ease or of comfort. Now, however, because of the uncertainty in the area, the sure knowledge of removal, because of the fear of expropriation, this township is, if this is possible, in a worse condition now than ever before. The very fact that there have been only nine applications for telephones in the past three years, tells a story of stagnation, a story of no development, a story of decay.

My party’s attitude towards Government policies is well known. Our abhorrence, for instance, for single-sex hostels denying normal family life, is well known to the hon. the Minister. Our opposition in regard to the destruction of the basic rights of home-ownership is also well known as is also our antipathy against a policy which uproots people and resettles them in strange areas, in most cases against their wishes. These views are not new, and whenever these attitudes are stated, they elicit predictable responses.

Nonetheless, there are certain facts which the House should know. In Sandton and the surrounding areas, excluding Alexandra, there are over 50 000 Black people living in homes and in other accommodation. This community is one which will grow instead of getting smaller. There are no recreational facilities in these areas for these people who are working, living, eating, drinking, sleeping and dying year in and year out. The Sandton town council and the residents of Sandton are aware of these problems and are prepared to do something about it. On 11 September 1975 the Sandton town council wrote to the hon. the Minister saying that they were willing to provide recreational facilities to suit the needs of the people. They said they were prepared to do this in consultation with the ratepayers so as to avoid friction. And yet the hon. the Minister said “no”. He said that such facilities may only be provided in Alexandra, but this area is not easily accessible to most of these people. And so this vast reservoir of human beings are denied facilities which are urgently needed, denied for ever, facilities which can never be financed by the Government in Alexandra and which, if provided in Alexandra, are nowhere near where most of these people live and work. My first plea, therefore, is that the Minister reconsider his attitude in this matter, and allow the Sandton town council, in consultation with his department and in consultation with the ratepayers of the area, to provide certain of these much-needed facilities which the Government does not have the resources to create itself. In these times of so-called change, a change of heart in this one attitude would do a tremendous amount towards easing tensions and easing the lives of the people in my area.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak for a few moments about Alexandra township as such. There are still 50 000 men, women and children in Alexandra. It is now clear that despite the policy of removal, this removal will nonetheless take upwards of eight to 10 years. It is quite clear from reports that there has been a significant slowdown in removals. Only 41 families were removed to new and proper housing last year. The finances available are in fact a grossly limiting factor in the plans of the Government for this particular area. But the uncertainty remains. The enormous population continues to stay there, and the question is: In what circumstances do they stay there? The roads are dusty, and when it rains they are mud-baths. These roads are badly corrugated. There is refuse everywhere because the collection of refuse is not regularly or properly organized. Overcrowding is rampant. Whole families are living in single rooms. Electricity is minimal. Smog is a suffocating problem. There are children in their hundreds on the streets. Sporting facilities are inadequate. There are no parks at all. Even the method of expropriation and compensation has caused and is causing headaches. This has already been raised by Dr. Browde in the Transvaal. At the time the Deputy Minister spoke to the provincial councillor for Houghton and he himself, when confronted with the disparity in the values placed on properties by the resettlement board and by private valuers, said, “Something is wrong somewhere”. Now, what I want to know is: Has he done anything about this? The people who speak to me say they are still unhappy about many of the expropriations. Are these matters being attended to? Mr. Chairman, this place Alexandra is developing fairly quickly into what I would call a permanent refugee camp, with all its incumbent evils. Despite a drop in population—and there has been a drop in population—the crime rate is up, and I am talking about crimes of violence such as robbery, theft and that sort of thing. In 1972-’73 there were 3 090 prosecutions, in 1973-74 3 006, and in 1974-75 3 246. This represents an increase of 8% in crime in that reduced population.

In all the categories of crime where there has not been an increase, the position has remained static despite the drop in population. Assaults are up 18%. Dagga offences are up 20%. What I want to say is that in respect of this demotivated, decaying township, it is time that this hon. Minister made up his mind. Either the community must be moved to better family accommodation—which we do not agree with, but if this policy is to be carried out, that must be done—where services, education, electricity, homes, medical facilities and so on are available, and this must be done now, in terms of Government policy, or this Government must take urgent steps to salvage from the forgotten ash heap this community which lives in squalor and which lives without much hope. It will cost us some funds, Sir. We know that, but this investment and the investigation of this forgotten community will pay golden dividends in goodwill and in the quality of life enjoyed by those 50 000 human beings about whom I have been speaking this afternoon.

In any event, if I could end on a general note, I want to say that with the rapid growth of Sandton and Randburg and with the rapid growth in the demand for services and for homes, surely the time has come, with Soweto being full to overflowing, to plan ahead for a new and properly equipped urban township on the north-western perimeters of Johannesburg, which will cater for Sandton and Randburg, and which will cater for the need for homes of those people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to react to what the hon. member for Sandton had to say about Alexandra. One would of course be pleased if a place like that could be given the necessary attention speedily or could even disappear altogether. Critics have one criterion by which they measure the success or failure of the policy of separate development: Must everything which has become part of the way of life of the Whites be given to all the Blacks to the same degree? One of the spheres to which the critics have paid special attention is the social sphere, a sphere which one could perhaps regard as embracing the spheres of education, health, housing and welfare.

I want to confine myself to welfare matters, particularly with regard to the Bantu. I think it is necessary for us to consider what has already been done in this sphere because in debates such as these, all we get from the other side of the House is a steady stream of criticism and misgivings. Throughout the world it has been found that the nature of a country’s welfare services are determined by the needs of specific community, but at the same time, by the means at the disposal of the country as well. It is well known that among the Bantu the welfare services have traditionally been provided within the tribal context. It is well known that tribal customs are taken into account in looking after Bantu in need of care. The orphan is looked after by families, the elderly by their descendants, and so on. Unfortunately, the influence of civilization is undermining those traditions and this, of course, is greatly to be regretted. However, in the execution of its policy the department took a sensible decision when, under an Act passed in 1971, it placed welfare institutions into the hands of the homelands. By doing so the department succeeded in putting this service back in the hands of the people who could attend to their people in a traditional way and, in addition, could determine their priorities themselves as regards looking after those of their people who were in need of care. Perhaps it is not generally known that there are already 80 institutions in the various homelands in which more than 9 000 Bantu in need of care are looked after. Already there are more than 342 000 Bantu in the homelands who receive some form of pension, such as old-age pensions or disability allowances. There are also about 500 lepers. Special attention is therefore given to this group of people who need it most. However, in providing these services in the homelands, cognizance is taken of the fact that there are a number of Bantu here in the White area, too, who need welfare services. They are being provided for here until such time as they can be provided for in their own traditional area. Of course, we know from experience that the Bantu population in the White area need welfare services while they are still living in the White areas. For example, there are a number of children’s homes for Bantu in the White areas. About 600 children are looked after there daily. There are also places of safety where about 400 children are looked after daily. Then, too, of course, there is always the possibility of expansion in this sphere. There are 163 places of care in which 19 000 Bantu children living in the White areas are looked after. Maintenance allowances and guardians allowances are paid to thousands of Bantu in the White areas. However, the fact is that in the past these welfare services were really provided by White initiative. It is true that the statistics I have quoted are not representative of the services of the White welfare organizations.

The registration of those organizations if effected by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in terms of the National Welfare Act. It is true that through the years, White welfare organizations have been established which have appointed Bantu sub-committees capable of developing, in time, into autonomous welfare organizations to provide for their own people. In the recent past, however, we have found that there are ill-disposed people who try to put a spanner in the works where matters are developing on this basis. There are always people who try to ensure that the welfare services for Bantu in the White area remain in the hands of the Whites so that the Bantu and the Whites may be brought together in one management organization.

I think it is now time for us to give very serious consideration to this whole set-up. It is true that as regards the administration of the Act, and the Commission to which the registration of welfare organizations is entrusted, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions enjoys the wholehearted cooperation of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. In the nature of the matter, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions applies the Act strictly, but the Act does not provide that the management of an organization need only consist of Whites. This is only a departmental arrangement which is being followed at the moment, but since this principle has been applied we have achieved a great deal of success and we have obtained the co-operation of the biggest welfare organizations in the country to establish subcommittees—as I have just mentioned—which could eventually give rise to autonomous Bantu welfare organizations. What we are trying to do in this connection is to establish a small nucleus which could serve as a basis so that the Bantu in the White areas, too, would be able to look after themselves in future.

I think the time is long past when we had to make the Bantu believe that he should always look to the Whites when he wanted some form of welfare assistance. I am therefore of the opinion that we should give serious consideration to some form of legislation or other measure to provide that welfare services for White and Bantu will be clearly separated. We must make provision for the Department of Bantu Administration and Development to have the exclusive responsibility for the registration of welfare organizations which are exclusively concerned with looking after Bantu in need of care. This will not result in discrimination but will afford us the opportunity to put legislation on the Statute Book in terms of which we shall help the Bantu to help themselves. To some people, of course, the obvious solution is that we should consider appointing a Bantu man or woman to the National Welfare Board, its regional boards or commissions, but that would really get us nowhere. It would be impossible for one or two Bantu on those statutory boards to represent the entire Bantu community in the White areas, much less those in the homelands. The time has come for us to rectify this matter by means of legislation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Westdene on his speech. He is an authority in the field he covered. It was a pleasure for me to listen to his constructive speech.

Mr. Chairman, the speech by the hon. member for Houghton gives one the impression that she is the only representative of the 17 million Black people in South Africa. I think it would perhaps be as well to tell that hon. member and her kindred spirits that the composition of the Parliament in which we are sitting is determined by the White voters of South Africa. The will of the Whites in South Africa is expressed in this Parliament. At elections the White voters of South Africa have stated how and by whom South Africa is to be governed. At the ballot-box the people gave this Parliament the mandate to seek the development of South Africa and all its people through separate national development so that one nation would not rule the other and so that each people would be afforded the opportunity to develop to its utmost.

If both the UP and the PRP, in their own way, see South Africa as an undivided unit, with one nation of 23 million people and with one structure of authority in which political power must be shared between Black, White and Brown, then one of those little parties must see to it that it convinces White South Africa that its solution of the problem of national relations is the best for the future of South Africa. In Durban North, for lack of a policy, apparently, the canvassers for both the UP and the PRP are going round asking the people to support them so that there will be a strong Opposition in South Africa. These little parties do not want to govern South Africa, or alternatively they realize that the people will not allow them to govern South Africa. If, therefore, the Opposition wants to negotiate a better dispensation for the Black people, they can only succeed in doing so if they negotiate within the framework of separate development. Some of the UP members, and a foolish party like the PRP, through their actions, only create expectations among Black people which will cause friction, be harmful to good relations and will have a destructive influence on the future of South Africa.

It is a privilege to belong to a party with a policy like that of the NP, a policy which contains all the elements envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister, viz. peace, prosperity and development, not only for all the peoples in the Republic of South Africa but for the peoples of southern Africa as well. The policy of the two little parties on that side of the House bear the seeds of fear, destruction and downfall, as the hon. member for Brentwood put it the other day. This party, in the face of the strongest opposition of hon. members on that side of the House, has led South Africa to full sovereign independence as one of the foremost African states. This proud party, again in the face of the strongest opposition of hon. members on that side of the House, is now engaged in leading another African State, the Transkei, towards sovereign independence. In October the Transkei is to become an independent country, one with its own identity, and one which will be able to take its place alongside the states of Africa and in the world under its own emblems. The Transkei may also become a member of the UN. This Government is already training Xhosa diplomats to represent an independent Transkei in the international world. In terms of our policy the Transkei can also become a member of the International Olympic Committee and of other international bodies. Today I want to express the hope that the Transkei will be allowed to be a member of the International Olympic Committee and other international sporting bodies. I should very much like to see the Transkei being able to send a sport team to the next Olympic Games under its own flag.

It is not only the Transkei which is making progress along this path of independence; Bophuthatswana, too, has already made a start with negotiations in respect of independence. Other Black peoples, too, will follow this path. Before these African States in the making lies the adventure and excitement of membership of and participation in international political associations and bodies. Awaiting them, too, is participation in international sports meetings as free and independent States. Under a dynamic NP Government we find that it is not only statesmen and political leaders, not only diplomats and civil servants, not only professional people and academics that are coming to the fore among the Black peoples, but sportsmen of culture, too. I should like to mention a few of these sportsmen by name. There is Titus Mamabola, who was the first Black South African athlete whose name appeared in the international order of rank. In 1975 his name was 23rd in the international order of ranking for the 5 000 metre race. In 1975 he won second place at the British Athletic Championships. Then, too, there is Jo Laserwane, who won the 400 metre race at the British National Games in 1973. This year Edward Senani recorded the fastest time in Africa in the 100 metre race. Mathews Batswadi, the present South African cross country champion, is another athlete whose name should be mentioned.

In the boxing ring, too, the Black peoples of South Africa have proved themselves. Pangaman Sekgapani, “Tap-tap” Makhatini and Jo Nqidi are all boxers with sound international achievements to their credit. Makhatini has already beaten a former world champion, Emile Griffiths. Then there is soccer, undoubtedly the most popular sport among the Black people. In our country there are 350 000 registered Black soccer players in the senior division and more than a million registered Black players in the junior division. It is interesting to note that during the recent tour 13 goals were scored against the Argentinians. Of these 13 goals, eight were scored by Black soccer players.

In the world of athletics, too, it is being clearly shown that within the foreseeable future, Black athletes will dominate the long distance races entirely. Three of the best times set up over the 5 000 metres are by Black athletes. Four of the five best times over the 10 000 metres are by Black athletes.

Mr. Chairman, under the rule of the UP the national sport of the Black people was to tackle each other on the mine dumps with clubs. [Interjections.] Under the policy of separate development, and by means of the contribution by the Department of Sport and Recreation and the sport division of the department of Bantu Administration, however, we find that Black sportsmen are already achieving international fame on the sports-fields of the world. I have mentioned the names of these Black people because it is possible that they will represent the Transkei in the future as an independent State. It is really a pity that when one reads about these Black sportsmen in the newspapers, reference is never made to their nationality. I have a newspaper here, but unfortunately time does not permit me to refer to it. Black sportsmen are never referred to as coming from Welkom or from Bloemfontein or from West Wits or any other place. An international achievement by a Xhosa athlete or by a Tswana athlete could undoubtedly mean a great deal to that athlete’s nation. Mr. Chairman, I know now that this party …

Surely they are all South Africans.

Mr. Chairman, as far as that hon. member is concerned, they are in fact South Africans. March Fiasconaro was also a South African, but at the previous Olympic Games he took part on behalf of Italy. In the same way a Xhosa who belongs to a sports club at West Wits or West Driefontein or Langa, will compete in the Olympic Games on behalf of the Transkei in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the faculty of the “jokkel” department of Stellenbosch University was pleased with the speech of the hon. member and perhaps in 20 years’ time he will receive a special edition of Pro-Nat as an ex “jokkel” man and NP organizer in recognition of 20 years of safe speeches, and will be satisfied with that.

†Sir, I want to quote from a speech by a prominent member of the party opposite, a man who is a very well-known party politician. On Thursday, in reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he said—

*This well-known politician—the hon. the Prime Minister—went on to say—

This refers to the urbanization of Blacks—

And he said that twice to three times as many people came to occupy the available posts. Then he goes on to say—

Sir, here we have a perfect example of the half-truths which that party lives on. They believe in myths when it comes to the Blacks.

†I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that it is a terminological inexactitude to say that this party supports the abolition of influx control. We believe in orderly urbanization of Black people, but not in influx control which is ideologically motivated, inhumanely applied, at vast expense in manpower, money and good will, and which is a complete failure and merely encourages bribery and law-breaking. Furthermore, it is complete nonsense for a man of the stature of the Prime Minister to say in this House that Black people do not want private ownership of land. In Clermont there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Blacks who wish to join the thousands who already have freehold land. It is these landowners who watch helplessly while 50 000 to 70 000 people are crowding into Clermont, mostly as legalized workers, legalized by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, under very dubious circumstances, to suit the needs of certain industrialists who contribute to the NP coffers. And note that all these people living in these shacks, in these disgusting conditions, are not people who have come in looking for work which is not there. They have legally endorsed “dompasse”, as they are known, and not as the Prime Minister’s half-truth suggests. How well is this Minister administering Clermont and solving the scandals he has created? We have been told that Clermont is to be retained as a Black freehold township and that it will eventually be handed over to KwaZulu, who, incidentally, most probably would not want it until the Minister has cleared up the mess. We are at one with the Minister in his objects in Clermont, and I want him to understand that. We would also like to see a viable, healthy, sensible Black city there, but what has the Minister done to make it easier for his administration to bring into existence a proper community there? The Kranskloof hostels are a most acceptable type of accommodation for a labour camp, but a labour camp is not going to solve the Clermont problem. People must be offered alternative housing. Why does this Minister persist in his mulish attitude with regard to site-and-service schemes? Why does he not, for example, proclaim the 3 000 plots which are available right next door to the Kranskloof hostels and call it a proper township? There are thousands of Black people who will buy those plots and build on them, and all that the Minister needs to do at the taxpayer’s expense is to have building inspectors to apply the correct standards.

Perhaps this is too much like free enterprise for the Minister’s socialized or socialist department. Furthermore, the Black population of Pinetown has multiplied at least eightfold in the last 20 years and yet all that has been done is that a hostel has been provided for single men and single women. The hon. the Deputy Minister has KwaZulu everywhere, so that he need not have any nightmares about White land. It would be funny if it were not tragic.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he would mind if I gave him a prescription for free growing-up tablets?

I would like to point out to the hon. member for Krugersdorp that if I look at his tummy, he is going to drop dead a lot sooner than I will. In Clermont the staff has not been increased during the last year. There were six White staff members employed last year and this year there are four. The number of Black staff are the same. Last year, in reply to the question how many members of the S.A. Police were being appointed, the hon. the Minister replied that they were at present being appointed. This year, in reply to the same question, he stated that none were being appointed. How does he expect his manager to clean up a mess like Clermont if he does not even give him the means to do it with? Last year he voted R600 000, but the man could not get staff, he could not get machinery and he does not have the means to do a job which he wants to do.

And they are laughing about it.

What can he do? He is sitting on a “kruitvat” in Clermont, and if it were not for the people who own the land themselves, it would have been much worse. As if this is not enough, the Deputy Minister, had the impertinence and the irresponsibility on 23 March to announce in this House that I was hampering a survey in Clermont. I want to tell him that he should thank me because I have alleviated the hurt, the suspicion, the resentment which that questionnaire has aroused, not by the questionnaire itself—the Zulu people of Clermont are sensible enough to know that one needs a questionnaire to get replies—but by the way in which this questionnaire has been drawn up. The questionnaire was drawn up in a paternalistic manner and asked for unnecessarily detailed information. It was furthermore of a unilingual nature, and I wonder where this “volksidentiteit” is which his Minister talks about when they cannot even send a document out in Zulu, but have to send it out in English.

A typical colonialist.

They send it to these people without any public relations at all. They do not endeavour to find out what is going on. They do not endeavour to find out what the people are concerned about and what is upsetting them. They will do well to employ one of Anglo-American’s public relation groups. This very poor relations exercise further inflamed feelings and the manager resorted to all kinds of intimidation trying to force people who are applying for passes and who have lived in Clermont for 30 years by refusing to sign certain forms to get them so far as to fill in this questionnaire. Is this the way to administer a township of people who own their own land? I want to tell this new and very eager Deputy Minister—I wish him well and I think he can do a very good job—that he should know how to treat people. He certainly should not treat people like this, certainly not Black people who are law-abiding and respectable and on top of it, Zulus. I want him to understand very clearly that I will stand behind and in front of the Black people of Clermont in their legitimate grievances against this Orwellian department which from the womb to the tomb direct the life of every Black man in this land. Mentioning wombs and tombs, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister that the Indwedwe magistrate’s court has not had any certificates for the registration of births for the past three months, nor has it had any receipt books. I would also like to point out that the Indwedwe magistrate’s court is in the need of repair. School-teachers, old-age pensioners, and everybody else living south of the Umgeni River in the Indwedwe magisterial district, has to travel through Pinetown to Durban and then up to Verulam to get to the Indwedwe district. This is a trip involving four buses. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. young member is performing terribly here …

He is “an hon. member”, it does not matter whether he is young or not.

It does not matter and it does not worry me in the least. Nor is it necessary for that hon. member to intervene on his behalf because I shall not hurt that young member. I shall deal with him very gently in accordance with the Biblical precept, which is how one should treat such youngsters. What does worry me is that in order to state his case, that hon. member metes out language right and left, even to the hon. the Prime Minister, which does trouble one somewhat. We still have a degree of decency as younger people towards older people and we can at least show that elementary decency towards one another, even though our standpoints and points of view differ. The hon. member can say what he wishes about me. The other day I called him out of the House in all friendliness when he told me that we were evading questions, and asked him: “My young friend, what do you actually want? Can I help you? Tell me what you want because owing to the form of your questions we cannot give you the information.” He then told me what he wanted and I thereupon gave him the assurance that I would go into the matter and would furnish him with a reply in that regard. I am simply mentioning this to point out the way in which I am prepared to deal with the hon. member. Since he is now making such a terrible fuss about everyone’s behaviour, I just want to read to him from a letter which I received from one of his fellow party members on that side of the House, a man who often approaches me in connection with his problems. We talk about them and find solutions for his problems. Let me read the following—

I am not going to give the name of the board, or there will be a witch-hunt in progress soon. The hon. member points out how many problems have been solved as a result of the contact we had with one another and he mentions the opportunities which were created to discuss certain matters. May I give myself a bit of credit? The hon. member continues as follows—

I am not mentioning it in order to boast, but only to point out to the hon. member that he will achieve far more by making personal contact with me. He can discuss with me problems with which he is getting nowhere, but I can assure him that he will not get far if he continues in this way. As soon as he deals with someone in this way, one finds immediately that one does not want to deal with him because there really are many shortcomings in his methods of approach. It is quite possible, therefore, for one to make things very difficult for him, but I am prepared to help him, however difficult he is towards me. However, I want to warn the hon. member to be careful. The hon. member’s problem is that he insists that he was, as it were, elected by the Blacks of Clermont, and demands the right to hold report-back meetings for them about what has happened in Parliament. The hon. member has on occasion applied to hold such a meeting, but he did not write himself; a certain gentleman wrote on his behalf.

I wrote myself.

After that the hon. member wrote himself, but the application for the first meeting, which was not granted him, was done by someone else, on his behalf. The gentleman to whom I refer is a Black man who is chairman of a ratepayers’ association. In contrast to this ratepayers’ association there is the advisory council which, according to the regulations was lawfully elected by the inhabitants of Clermont. As far as I know, and according to all the reports at my disposal—including one from one of the township managers—the hon. gentleman does not contact this lawfully elected advisory council, but prefers the other body. I have a whole file of documents on this. The chairman of the ratepayers’ association whom the hon. member contacts, was at one time also chairman of an association of the property owners there, although under another name. He is known as an agitator in the area. That hon. member is continually using this person to intercede on his behalf. Do hon. members know what the legally elected advisory council wrote to the hon. member in connection with his meeting? They held a special meeting to deal with an application concerning the meeting which was handed in. They then wrote and told him that they did not want him there; they were not interested in a report-back meeting on his part. If I were to judge now, he is still angry that the Blacks told him that they are the legally elected people in that area and that they do not need him there. It is interesting to know that the township manager wrote to the hon. member and told him that if he would be prepared to go and talk to the legally elected body, this would be given very favourable consideration. The hon. member did not do this, but is still in contact with the other body which causes a great deal of discord amongst the Blacks. I want to warn the hon. member that his behaviour is causing friction among the Blacks in this area. His behaviour is also causing friction between the Blacks and the Whites of that area. I now predict that the hon. member is still going to reap the bitter fruits of his actions.

I can quote a great deal of information in connection with that hon. member’s correspondence here. The hon. member referred to the questionnaire which was circulated. I readily concede to the hon. member that the language in which the list of questions was drawn up was perhaps not entirely suitable. But a firm of attorneys wrote the following after one of their clients had approached them to find out if he was obliged to complete the questionnaire—

Here we have a firm of attorneys that sees no reason why the forms cannot be completed. The forms were issued merely to make a survey of land owners and inhabitants in Clermont so that as regards the replanning of the area and the control measures, an improvement in the existing situation could be brought about. But the hon. member was apparently not anxious to help, although he wrote in a letter that he was indeed prepared to help. The hon. member kicked up a tremendous fuss about Kranskloof. However, I have a letter here in which he congratulates me and thanks me for my policy in respect of Kranskloof, but today he complained about the same policy. The hon. member had a great deal to say about the department’s policy and he berated us. But he has, on occasion, said that he agreed with us. He said the following—

Sir, one cannot understand the man. The hon. member writes that Kranskloof looks fine and in order and that we should continue in this way, whereas today he complains that conditions in Kranskloof are bad. The hon. member condemns everything which the department has done but nevertheless says: “I find myself in general agreement with your department’s policy”. If I could only determine what is worrying the hon. member, then I could help him, as far as I am able, with all the matters in his constituency. This holds for Clermont and all other problems. It is not that I want to act in a fatherly manner towards the hon. member. I am still too young for that; he does not even have to call me “uncle”. However, I am prepared to help him and I think that in that way I could meet him in other matters, and solve more of his problems in that way, as a very respectable colleague of the hon. member wrote to me with reference to the problems with which I helped him. Some of his problems were perhaps just as serious as those of the hon. member for Pinetown.

It is pointless to come and wave one’s arms in the House and hurl accusations in all directions when no one knows what one’s problem is. As a result, you are at loggerheads with the township manager of Clermont, with the legally elected advisory council in Clermont—indeed, you are at loggerheads with everyone. No one has ever progressed very far in that way and no one is going to get their problems solved in that way. I leave the hon. member at that, with the friendly invitation to come and speak to me personally should it be necessary. If not, he must state his case in such a way that one would like to help him. The manner in which he is now acting, causes friction between Black and Black and between White and Black. We may all regret this eventually.

It is unfortunate that I have had to use my time in this way. My time has already almost expired. I want to ask the hon. member for Jeppe to be present in the House tonight, because I should like to tell him everything in connection with housing. It may also be good information for the hon. member for Houghton. After I have explained the situation to them, I hope that I shall receive assistance from them so that I can help them to solve the problems about which they are complaining. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister of the fatherly manner in which he reproached the hon. member for Pinetown.

I actually want to speak about another subject, i.e. agricultural development in the Bantu homelands. When we speak about agricultural development in the homelands, there is, in my opinion, a definite difference between agriculture and farming. In a subsistence sector farming and agriculture are synonomous. Every farmer has his own land and he uses family labour. In modern agriculture farming remains central, but every farm becomes merely a production line from which the various inputs are utilized in the economy. Some of these inputs are provided by commercial activities supporting agriculture. These include, inter alia, the manufacture and distribution of agricultural products, credit facilities, the availability of technical production factors. However, some inputs are not of a commercial nature. They are services required by farmers but for which they do not pay directly, for example research, training and extension services.

These two kinds of inputs are not farming, but are nevertheless essential activities in a modern agricultural sector which are dependent on farming for their functioning.

The agricultural sector consists of another component, i.e. the so-called agricultural milieu. This is a combination of all influences on activities in farming and other supporting services, but which are meant for the whole country in general. As development takes place, the agricultural sector moves from primary farming to modern agriculture. It is important to ensure that this takes place in an orderly manner during the process of development and that the agricultural sector remains sufficiently fluid to adapt itself to changing circumstances. Every one of the above-mentioned components demands specific but changing forms of interest and action. It is therefore not strange that individuals and firms, as well as the authorities, are closely concerned in action concerning agricultural development.

In accordance with this division into four components, a close relationship can be indicated. Farming is usually private, but the authorities may intervene if the private sector fails. Commercial agricultural supporting services can be run either by the private sector or by State institutions in order to avoid or regulate the formation of monopolies. The commercially supported services are mainly public activities. The agricultural milieu is usually determined by the public sector. The principle, which is also followed in the Black homelands, is that the authorities only take action when the functioning of the marketing mechanism or other indirect methods fail to bring about the desired state of affairs. The authorities therefore have an important role to fulfil. They must ensure that production, growth and the necessary adjustments, which should necessarily accompany development, take place in a proper manner.

The increase in production in agriculture is considered one of the strategic aims with respect to homeland development. In this way the agricultural sector cannot only provide its primary and basic function, i.e. the provision of food to an ever-growing population, but increased yields can also lead to import substitutions, or by means of export, can serve as a means of earning foreign currency. In order to promote increased production, much attention is given to the private farmer. Agricultural extension services are provided. Motivation of the community is definitely one of the most critical forms of development in the homelands. At present 870 posts for guidance officers in the homelands have already been filled. A thousand posts are needed. Various techniques and methods are applied to motivate the community positively. Agricultural training is presented over a broad front. Horticulture is offered as a subject at school up to and including Std. 4, and agricultural science as a subject from Std. 5 up to and including matric. The establishment of agricultural schools at present enjoys high priority. The first of these ought to be completed in 1976 in the Ciskei.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said, the establishment of agricultural high schools is at present enjoying high priority, and the first of these ought to be completed in the Ciskei this year. It is intended to erect at least one agricultural high school in every homeland in due course. Agricultural training at agricultural colleges and training centres is offered on a continuous basis. In 1974, 610 students were registered, while diplomas were granted to 155. The University of Fort Hare is the only university for Blacks in the homelands which has a faculty of agriculture. Agricultural research, specifically aimed at the homelands and the particular position prevailing there, is provided by several bodies. The protection of the agricultural soil enjoys particularly high priority and is mainly taken care of by the authorities. Development works show the following from 1960 to 1974, in round figures: As far as contours and weirs are concerned, 10 000 km were completed in 1960 as against 34 000 km in 1974; as far as grass strips are concerned, in 1960 there were 196 000 km as against 323 000 km in 1974; in the case of fences there were 43 000 km in 1960 as against 131 000 km in 1974; in 1960 there were 3 037 earth and concrete dams as against 5 725 in 1974. The development of irrigation schemes also holds a very important position. The area under irrigation increased from 11 488 ha in 1955 to 17 335 ha in 1974. Marketing services are being cared for. Where the private sector is unable to offer commercial services, the Department of Agriculture provides marketing services in the form of auction kraals and public market places. The establishment of co-operative societies is considered the ideal organizational measure to make the preceding commercial supporting services available to the private farmer. By the end of 1974, 68 co-operative societies had already been established in the homelands. It therefore seems as if co-operative societies are gradually increasing in popularity.

Sir, I can continue and mention everything which is done to place agricultural development in the homelands on a sound footing. I could still say a great deal more in this connection, but time does not allow me. However, I want to say that, in spite of everything which is done, agriculture in the homelands has not had the desired effect. This is basically because the people should be better motivated. When I say this, I should like to appeal to the homeland authorities to give more attention to agricultural development in the Bantu homelands. I am convinced that our homelands can not only provide in their own needs, but also make a contribution towards foreign currency. I mention this because our homelands have some of the best soil in the Republic of South Africa. Our homelands have the highest rainfall, i.e. 508 mm and more per annum. Eighty per cent of the inhabitants of the homelands are people who are interested in farming. If these people are correctly motivated and inspired, they ought to be able to make a very large contribution towards the economy of their own countries, as well as of South Africa and the whole of southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and to other hon. members of the NP as well. I listened with special attention to the hon. member for Innesdal, who once again, with undisguised and naïve honesty, so clearly exposed the basic, fundamental helplessness of National Party thought here. There is a basic premise adopted by the NP as the foundation of its thinking. That premise is false, misleading and mortally dangerous to the White man of South Africa. As long as the NP bases its policy guide-lines on the premise that the permanent urbanized Black man is not a full South African citizen …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member maintain that the standpoint of members on this side of the House is false?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, as long as the Government bases its policy on a standpoint which is false, misleading and dangerous, it will not contribute towards the solution of South Africa’s problems. The first task the Government must perform is to drop that standpoint which it recognizes at present. There is a great opportunity for the Government to carry out the promise it made to the UNO in the biggest city of South Africa, viz. Soweto. I want to suggest seven steps to the Government, and if the Government takes those steps, not only will it be able to carry out its promise to the UNO, it will also make a tremendous contribution towards the solution of South Africa’s problems. If the Government is not prepared to take these urgent steps without delay and in a purposeful way, it will prove that the Government is not prepared to move away from discrimination, the credibility of the Government will be shattered and the Government’s policy will fail hopelessly and finally. In dealing with the steps which the Government must take, I want to compare the position of the Black South African citizen living in Soweto with that of a White man who is a stranger and who lives in South Africa.

In Houghton!

No, not in Houghton, but that does not matter. Let us take an income level of R2 400 per annum for a family man with three children. The Black South African citizen living in Soweto is a tax-payer, whereas the foreign White man with the same income is not a tax-payer. Let us look at the situation of the Black man and the White man as regards housing. The White man, because he is White, although he is not a South African citizen, and although he is not a tax-payer, may own his own house. The Black man, because he is Black, may not own a house. In the case of the Black man, although he is a tax-payer and a South African citizen, this. Government only spends about R28 per annum on the education of his child. In the case of the White man who is neither a citizen nor a tax-payer, the Government pays about R500 per annum on educating his child. Apart from that, the Government pays for the books of the White man’s child, but not for the books of the Black man’s child.

Let us look at law and order, Mr. Chairman. As a result of the Government’s failure to provide sufficient police in the Soweto area, Soweto has one of the highest crime rates in the world. This is the responsibility of the Government and only the Government can do anything about it. In other words, the Government has failed and the Government must see to it that law and order is maintained in a place like Soweto by increasing the number of police and improving the facilities for the police in that area. Under the Nationalist Government there can be no respect for the law of the Nationalist government on the part of the Black man because he does not see that law as an instrument for the protection of his rights; he sees that law as an instrument to inflict on him the oppressive policy and actions of the Government.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not have the time to answer a question.

Will the Black man whom you are championing have the franchise?

The fifth step, too, is very important. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

No, I cannot answer questions. Hon. members are now becoming obstreperous. What is very important, Sir, is that the Government should provide adequate transport facilities between the place where he lives and his place of employment. The Black man cannot choose where he wants to live. It is the Government which forces on him a system of transport which is inadequate and which, owing to overloading, is often dangerous and does not afford him the opportunity to get transport within a reasonable time between the place where he lives and his place of employment. On the average, a Black man has to set aside four hours per day for Transport between his home and his place of employment. This does not apply to the White man. [Interjections.] This is an absolute fact, but the problem is that the members of the NP lack the courage to face the facts and do something about it. In this way the interests of the White man in South Africa are prejudiced as a result of the actions and the policies of that side of the House.

The sixth step which must be taken is that the Government must abolish the Bantu Administration Boards without further ado. As far as Soweto is concerned, it must hand over the control of Soweto to the people of Soweto by way of a fully-elected city council for the city of Soweto, the biggest city in South Africa. The seventh step which must be taken is that the Government must act without delay to provide electricity for the inhabitants of Soweto. There is no comparable city in Africa whose inhabitants are not provided with electricity. Up to the present time there are 700 000 people in Soweto who are not provided with electricity. In a city like that it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the inhabitants are provided with services.

I repeat that if the Government is sincere about its promises to the UNO and to the Black man of South Africa, and if it wants to retain its credibility, then it must tackle immediately the necessary task of reform with regard to a city like Soweto, and it must provide the vital services and facilities there as soon as possible. [Interjections.]

Order! Either the hon. members must converse more quietly or the hon. member must talk louder, because I cannot hear him. [Interjections.]

Sir, I am trying. If the Minister states that he is not prepared to take those seven steps, then he must concede at the same time that the Government is not prepared to carry out its promise and make a real and tangible contribution to the solution of South Africa’s race problems.

Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for Bryanston who has just resumed his seat and who floundered about in the mud and looked at Soweto through the well-known un-South African glasses to which we are accustomed …

Order! I think the hon. member should rather withdraw the words “floundered about in the mud”.

I shall withdraw them. Sir, since I looked at Soweto through the well-known un-South African glasses to which we have become accustomed in the case of that party, I would like to answer by referring to an article written in the Financial Gazette by a foreigner. It is one of three articles he wrote. This is what the foreigner had to say about Soweto—

Sir, one wonders why the hon. member is so concerned when someone from abroad tells him what class the people in Soweto are. [Interjections.] However, my time is limited. One of the most important facets in the economic and political development of the Black nations of South Africa is undoubtedly the demarcation and consolidation of separate areas for each nation. This is something which is essential in order to give affect to the evolution of the policy of separate development. The extent of the Black and White areas in the country was determined by the 1936 Act, the Bantu Trust and Land Act and the acceptance of the subsequent consolidation plan during 1975, was definitely a meaningful step, since that it legally finalized the boundaries of the areas of the various nations. What was subsequently stressed, was the purchase of land which I should like to deal with for a few minutes tonight.

The programme of land purchases can be considered the main programme in the homeland consolidation action. It is obvious that it has to be carried out with speed, and the speed with which it will be carried out, will naturally depend upon the available funds as well as manpower. The high political priority attached to the programme of land purchase is attributable to the importance of carrying out the policy of separate development, while the rapid increase in land prices placed a premium on the speedy execution of this programme, and I emphasize the words “speedy execution ”. The surface area which was involved in the land purchase, amounted to 2 402 000 ha, and an amount of R202 million has already been made available to the Bantu Trust by the State for the purchase of land since 1949. An acceleration in this programme of land purchases is further noticeable by the amount of R25 million budgeted for the 1975-’76 income tax year, and I want to add that infinitely more money will have to be spent in order to carry out the plan effectively. Sir, it is estimated that purchase costs—if I speak of these, I am speaking of the non-recurrent purchase costs of these lands—amount to R417 million, or R680 million over a period of ten years, with an expected cost increase of 10% per annum and capital expenditure which will increase from approximately R45 million in the first year to R100 million in the tenth year. Therefore, should the programme be carried out within a reasonable period of time, and if I take a period of ten years for it, no less than R100 million per year will be needed for the effective carrying out thereof. It is therefore clear that the duty rests on the Government to find other methods besides the usual budget to finance this program. It is therefore also gratifying to be able to report that the inter-departmental committee on the financing of land purchases suggested the following methods on 24 March: (1) That bonds on purchased land be taken over by the Trust at negotiable conditions; and (2) that a part of the purchase price of land be taken over by the Trust on the basis of deferment and repaid over a period mutually agreed to. I want to refer to these briefly as debentures. Both these methods therefore provide that interest will be paid to the buyers concerned at a rate mutually agreed to.

There are also State securities and bonds, but this is still being considered interdepartmentally. I want to say here immediately that I am convinced that serious attention should be given to finding a different method, and this I want to call a foreign loan. We know that people abroad consider South Africa a fruitful sphere of investment and I am convinced that if such a loan could be issued and if a fixed amount is determined for this, there will definitely be a positive reaction to this. The fixed amount I have in mind, must be the total amount needed finally to buy the land which is required. We must finalize this programme. I say this with the greatest respect, but the farming community whose farms are affected by the purchase of land for the homelands is irritable and dissatisfied. These people are living on farms which they feel are frozen and nevertheless they are expected to proceed with their farming. Let us tonight as legislators, who must manage the affairs of our country, put ourselves in the place of those farmers for a moment, those who have to give up their farms. The uncertainty about when their farms are going to be purchased definitely brings about tension in their farming activities. It is clear that these people are therefore carrying a much greater burden than the other citizens of South Africa. He is making his sacrifice by offering up his land, which has perhaps been in the family for generations, for homeland development; he does not mind doing it because he supports the steps which the Government is taking in that direction. But now an even greater sacrifice is demanded of him, and this is that he must proceed with his farming and wait for payment. I do not think that these farmers are unreasonable if I say that they would like to have certainty about this, because they would like to plan for the future and want to know what money they can spend on new farms or other land which must be purchased.

Since the Transkei is now asking for independence and since it borders largely on my constituency, I want to make a request tonight that an exception be made in the case of the Transkei, i.e. that if extra money is made available, the farms adjoining the Transkei which have to be transferred to the Transkei, be purchased first. In this way satisfaction will once again be created among the farmers and satisfaction amongst the Transkeian citizens, because the Transkeian citizens who remain here know that the farm opposite will be added to the Transkei, and we can understand how keen he will be to obtain that land. The farmer who remains on the land knows that the land must be given to the Transkei and naturally he cannot continue with his farming activities as he would like. I therefore make this request tonight, and I also do so at the instruction of the inhabitants of the area which I represent, and I am speaking of the Ongeluksnek area, the Pitseng area and of the Umgha Flats area, of the Goeba area and also of certain farms in the Elliot area. These are the properties of a great many farmers who are affected. They asked me to put the matter to the House tonight and I am putting it respectfully to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister knows, and I do not think that he is responsible for this, or that the department is responsible. We must have the matter rectified by the Treasury.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I do not have time to answer questions. We are waiting for money from the Treasury because I know that we are dependent on that source. I am convinced that if we carry through my idea, that we should issue a foreign loan, we would be able to carry out the consolidation plans far more quickly to the satisfaction of our whole population and to the satisfaction of the Transkei. I would like to conclude by saying that the consolidation plans of the homelands are succeeding; there is no doubt about this. We can tell the prophets of doom on the other side of the House that the fact that the Transkei requested independence, shows that we a were right. Let us practice what we preach and make the Transkei the first Bantu homeland which will stand independently and receive all its land in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to the hon. member who spoke from the benches of the PRP. I want to make the statement that when history is written one day, South Africa will note the date 26 October 1976 as a red letter day, as the first step to realize the National Government’s constitutional emancipation of South Africa’s Black nations. This is also the first opportunity to test the practicability of the National Party’s experiment—and it is indeed an experiment. I believe that it will succeed because it is still taking place in an evolutionary way without any of the revolutionary elements of friction, conflict and bloody confrontation which are characteristic of other processes of emancipation in greater Africa. However, it is completely natural and unavoidable that this step will have its teething troubles and problems. Indeed, the Transkei is not an isolated island state with all its people inside its borders, which can be made independent by a single stroke of a pen or by means of a simple proclamation. Besides all the many requirements such as the creation of a viable economy for the homelands, inter-dependent provisions in connection with its relations with the Republic of South Africa and other neighbouring states, etc., there is also the fact, which has to be taken into account, that approximately 1,5 million of its population is found outside its borders and within the borders of the White homeland. The Government’s standpoint is definitely and clearly that these 1,5 million people should automatically become citizens of the Transkei when it becomes independent. Unfortunately this measure is not only questioned by opposition groups in an extremely critical and negative way; it is also seized upon in order to discredit the whole process and clothe it in a shroud of unreality. I shall return to this point in a moment.

It is extremely important that the way in which these Xhosas outside the homeland are dealt with after 26 October 1976, will serve as an example, as a guide and as a pattern for the further development of the independence of the remaining Black peoples. Therefore, in my opinion, it must be approached and carried out as cautiously and as correctly as possible. I do not have the time to furnish the House with the statistics concerning the total geographical distribution of the Black populations of South Africa. I shall therefore content myself with a few of the most important facts to indicate that in future on this road of emancipation we shall have to deal with the same problems as we would have when dealing with these 1,5 million Xhosas within White South Africa. We simply cannot get away from it. According to 1973 statistics there are 15,774 million Bantu in South Africa. However, there are many more now. 7,717 million of them were established within the homelands and 8,057 million were outside the homelands. This represents 48,9% as against 51,1%

I now want to refer to the numbers in a few of the most important and largest homelands. The Transkei has a total population of 3,229 million, with 1,828 million within its own borders, and 1,406 million or 43,5% outside its borders. When speaking of “outside”, I mean outside the borders of the Bantu homeland and within the borders of the White homeland in South Africa. There are altogether 1,82 million Tswanas and of these only 705 000 are within the borders of their own homeland, while 1,116 million are resident outside. 61,3% of the population therefore lives outside their borders. In the case of the Zulus the picture is slightly more favourable than that of the Tswanas, because of their total population of 4,357 million, 2,349 million live inside, and 2,008 million outside the homeland. This represents 46,1% of the total population outside the homeland. There are altogether 1,471 million South Sotho and of them 169 200 live inside the homeland borders and 1,302 million outside. 88,5% of the population therefore lives outside their borders—a highly unnatural situation. I shall refer to only one further population group, i.e. the North Sotho with a total population of 1,741 million, 1,1 million of them live inside and approximately 360 000 outside the borders of the homelands. Only 36,8% of them therefore live outside the borders of the homelands. It is remarkable that 88,5% of the South Sotho as against 36,8% of the North Sotho live in White areas. The position concerning the North Sotho is far more favourable. These figures prove once again the untenable imbalance of numbers within and without the homelands as I have already emphazised in my previous speech. Indeed, 48,9% of the Blacks live inside their homelands and more than half—i.e. 51,1% —live outside.

If we project these figures to the year 2000 and 2020, while it is estimated that in the year 2000 there will be 34,47 million Blacks and in the year 2020 54,589 million Blacks in South Africa, it is clear that by the year 2000 approximately 17 million or even 18 million Blacks will have to be accommodated within the White homelands, and in the year 2020 between approximately 27 million and 30 million Bantu will have to be provided with accommodation outside the Bantu homelands. If one takes into consideration the fact that in 1970 approximately 3 million Blacks had been settled in the 13 major industrial cities alone and if one thinks of Soweto, the Witwatersrand and Vlakfontein near Pretoria as well as other Black residential areas, the picture becomes quite clear.

The Government realizes that this Black preponderance of numbers as against the Whites cannot be accepted on a permanent basis and it has repeatedly spelled out its policy in this connection. The Blacks have to be re-channelled to the homelands and as far as the future is concerned, the number of Blacks in the Black homeland must be drastically reduced or, if this is not done, must at least be frozen provisionally. What bothers me and shocks every right-minded South African is the negative attitude of the Opposition groups towards this thorny question. The date 26 October 1976 is calculated to eliminate the most serious form of discrimination—i.e., political or constitutional domination—which could be committed against any nation, and since this is the most important step in that direction, it is a long time since we have had such a persistent nagging on the part of the Opposition concerning the discrimination against Blacks as we have in this very debate.

And in our own quarters too.

I do not know whether it is also the case in our own quarters.

It is.

In any event, the opposite side is moaning pitifully about this matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Marico has just spelt out in facts and figures the dilemma facing the NP, namely that 50% of the Black people in this country are living outside the homelands. If one takes a simple mathematical progression, using the number of White people that live in this country, and basing one’s calculations not on the year 2000 but on the year 2050, one can find out what the result is. There is no answer … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Carletonville can shout as much as he likes, but the philosophy and political solutions which the NP offer to this country under their policy provides no answer as to how to deal with this situation. It was spelt out by the hon. member for Marico minute by minute as he quoted these facts and figures.

Then you nearly died of fright. Milksop!

I am not surprised that the hon. members on the other side sat quietly and listened to the hon. member for Marico. They must have realized in their own minds that …

Order! The hon. member for Carletonville must withdraw the word “milksop”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

I presume the hon. member is withdrawing it unconditionally.

†I was dealing with the hon. the Minister earlier on with reference to his apparent inability to answer questions. I said to him then that my question was very simple. Let me read it out again because I believe it should be spelt out. The question I put in this House which after 14 days he was still unable to answer, read as follows (Questions, 26 March 1976, col. 678)—

As I said earlier on, the answer the hon. the Minister gave, was—

The hon. the Minister knows that this information is in fact readily available. He knows that the Adjustment Committee keeps careful records during every year of all the applications made to it for properties to be sold to the South African Bantu Trust. He knows that they meet every three months. He knows who the members are. He knows that if he goes to a member, the chairman or the secretary of the Adjustment Committee and says, “Please tell me how many properties were offered to you during 1975”, he would get the answer. He knows that if he asks how many properties were sold, he would get the answer to that. He has got to know that because, from a fiscal point of view, he has to know how much money he has spent. In fact, if the hon. the Minister knows his onions, he will know that during the fiscal year from April 1974 to the end of March 1975 there were only seven trading stations sold. Yet he maintains it was not possible to find this information in respect of a calendar year. This is the most utterly ridiculous situation.

What do the people think when they find this situation arising? They are reluctantly compelled to arrive at the conclusion that the Minister is hiding something because he is embarrassed by what has happened in that financial year, embarrassed because of the fact that 50% of the money which was allocated to buy up White-owned property in the Transkei during that financial year was spent on two speculators in Port St. Johns. The hon. the Minister went on to say that only R3,5 million had now been allocated to the Transkei. He agreed that this amount had already been committed by 9 April, while the budget was only determined on 31 March. What about the sick people and the aged? What about the deceased estates in the Transkei? Has the hon. the Minister given any thought to these at all? He comes up with a spurious answer to the effect that an additional R800 000 will be available from moneys which will come back to the S.A. Bantu Trust from properties which were sold. I am very surprised because in 1974, according to the figures, only R150 000 came into the S.A. Bantu Trust from properties that were sold. In the year 1975 only R175 000 came into the Bantu Trust. How can it be that R800 000 will now suddenly come into the S.A. Bantu Trust from properties which have been sold?

Mr. Chairman, we are not satisfied with the hon. the Minister. He has refused to answer three other questions put to him by other members on this side of the House, and we look at the situation with trepidation, because we believe that this is not proper government.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London City must forgive me for not reacting to his argument for the moment. However, I am not quite so much of a doubting Thomas as he is.

On this occasion I should prefer to concentrate on a polemic conducted recently in Die Burger. It concerned the illegal squatting by Black people at a place called Crossroads, a place which happens to be situated in my constituency. I believe that this Government has never had cause to be ashamed of the way in which Black people in White areas are treated. Those of them who are in White areas legally are well-treated. They are provided with sound standard accommodation, and in fact this is a pre-condition for the admission of Black people to White areas. Their lot is made more pleasant in various other ways too. Various announcements in this connection have already been made and will be carried out in due course. The Bantu administration boards, too, render an outstanding service in connection with this matter, and I believe that we should lend them support to enable them to achieve yet greater success in carrying out their task.

However, people who are in these areas illegally and contrary to the will of the Whites, must realize that they are uninvited guests. Consequently they should not complain if they are treated as such. Nor, indeed, should they complain if they are treated as trespassers.

Let us consider briefly the position at Crossroads. It is a place which rose virtually overnight about a year ago. At the moment there are 1 300 shanties inhabited by about 9 000 people. At least 90% of those people are in that area illegally. They are from the Transkei and the Ciskei, where they did have accommodation. It is important that we bear this fact in mind. They came to that area knowing full well that from as long ago as 1945 it had been illegal to go there without permission, in terms of an Act passed when the United Party was in power.

Why do they come here?

There are about 500 …

Why do they come here?

I am still coming to that. There are about 500 men with their families whose presence in that area is illegal. Besides these there are about 500 men living in that area who are contract labourers. They are therefore in that area legally, but their presence at Crossroads is illegal. In their districts of origin they concluded contracts in terms of which they had to work in that area as single individuals. Accommodation in hostels for single Bantu is available to them as recruited labourers in the Black residential areas. Their employers pay for their accommodation there. In the meantime they squat illegally at Crossroads where their wives and children have joined them, also illegally. In reply to a question asked in the House this year, the Minister concerned stated that 693 women from Crossroads were found guilty in court last year owing to their illegal presence in a prescribed area. Of those approximately 9 000 people, therefore, there is not one who is not living at Crossroads illegally. Only about 500 of the men living there are legally in that area. They put up their shanties illegally on private property. The families who are legally in that area have accommodation. They either have proper houses, or are approved tenants in Black residential areas. Consequently there is not a single Bantu family legally in that area for whom it is necessary to squat at Crossroads. That is the true situation.

However, what do we find now? We find that, led by the self-appointed representatives of the Black people in this House—viz. the party just opposite me—and various others, too, among whom are Mr. Michael Savage of the S.A. Institute of Race Relations and the Black Sash, those people are being encouraged to break the laws of the land. It is said that there are too few opportunities in the homelands and that it is for that reason that they come here. Their so-called representatives are not in the least concerned about the fact that those Black people are unemployed and loaf around the White areas. They prefer this to the fact that they do not have enough work in their own homelands. Why do we never hear that these people advise the Black people rather to stay where they belong or go back to their real homes? Why are they prompted to stay in these areas illegally?

A second argument that is advanced is the so-called sacredness of marriage. I know that this is a very contentious matter and I do not believe that we can discuss it in great detail in this debate. What about the thousands of Bantu men who for many years have been performing contract work here in South Africa far from their wives? They submit to and respect the laws of the land. However, people living illegally at Crossroads enjoy the sympathy of the priests, scribes and do-gooders. They now ostensibly have a law which is superior to the laws of the land.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Pinelands has not yet taken part in this debate, because I had hoped that he would do so. The hon. member went to visit that area. I do not know whether he had the necessary permission to do so, because I am told that he visits places he may not. The hon. member then reported back to his constituency and we read the following in The Cape Times of 20 August 1975—

Please note, “for the homeless”—

Now the hon. member is upset. He asked for houses and facilities for the people who are living illegally in a certain area. In that way the hon. member is encouraging them to stay there. I should like to know what he and the hon. member for Rondebosch, who was with him there, told those people. Did they point out to those people that they were living there illegally and that they should rather return to their homelands? May we not know that? We always hear only what those people told them. However, it seems to me that in fact the opposite is true, viz. that they did not tell them to return. The hon. member went even further and said the following in the issue of Progress—I think that is the PRP’s little newspaper—dated September 1975—

The hon. member states this in spite of the fact that the Chairman of the Bantu Administration Board stated in the public Press that 90% of the people were living at Cross Roads illegally. The hon. member for Pinelands, however, maintains that the vast majority of those people are living there legally. However, I now want to leave the hon. member for Pinelands at that.

Mr. Savage who is attached to the Race Institute, wrote a number of letters to Die Burger in which he made quite a few statements.

Families belong together.

I want to mention only five of his statements. The hon. member for Pinelands can protect him tomorrow Mr. Savage maintains, in the first place, that the Influx Control Act is morally indefensible. In the second place, he states that it is unnecessary to break up so many families at Cross Roads. Apparently he is not concerned about the fact that some families living there are broken up. Thirdly, he states that it is misleading to say that the people of Cross Roads are wilful lawbreakers and that they are defying authority. According to him they are merely victims of laws which they did not make themselves. Although I have not made Britain’s laws, I have to submit to those laws if I pay a visit there!) In the fourth place, the Athlone Advisory Bureau run by Mr. Savage’s organization provides these people with legal assistance and they themselves admit that when it is impossible to enter a plea of not guilty, they nevertheless provide legal aid so that extenuating circumstances may be advanced.

In the fifth place, he states that Cross Roads should be used to exert pressure on those who are active in the political sphere so that change may be brought about. When I analyse these statements, I want to say that each of the five statements, and the statements of the hon. member for Pinelands to which I have referred, have one message for the Black people at Cross Roads. It is this: You are right and the law is wrong. That is why I say that the people to whom I have referred are encouraging the people of Cross Roads to break the law and defy authority. The result is inspired defiance of national policy. Taking everything into account, I, like the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner of the Western Cape, wonder to what extent Bantu are influenced by the actions I have mentioned in their continuing disregard of the laws of the land, and to what extent the sources of this influence are directly responsible for conditions in the squatter camps. I also wonder to what extent the hate of the Whites which, it is maintained, is found among these people, is due to the influence and the meddling of the people who inspire them.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments of the hon. member for False Bay perplexed our hon. friends on the opposite side to such an extent that I am not going to pursue his arguments any further.

The provision of capital remains one of the most important factors for the sound and balanced economic development of the homelands. Indeed, a shortage and lack of capital will be a bottleneck in the development of the homelands. However, the Government’s policy of encouraging the establishment of industries in the homelands on the agency basis, is having magnificent results. For example, more than 120 factories have been erected in the homelands over the past five years in co-operation with White entrepreneurs. R70 million has been invested, and of this, R8 million was contributed by private enterprise.

Brilliant results are being produced, by the active involvement of the various homeland leaders, actively supported by the various development corporations in overseas campaigns for acquainting people with the possibilities offered by the homelands as fields for investment. This has tremendous possibilities for the development of the homelands. Mindful of the rapid increase in population and the resulting increasing demand for employment opportunities in the homelands, it is very clear, however, that progressively larger demands for capital will arise. The question is what actual and what potential sources are available for the provision of capital. I want to refer to one potential source for the provision of capital, namely the Black people themselves, including more specifically the so-called “migrant labourers”. I am referring to this potential source of providing capital for two reasons. In the first place it undeniably holds good for all times that a nation saves itself and builds its own future. No nation with self-respect will allow another nation or nations to perform its task of upliftment and building for it for ever. This must inevitably lead to economic servitude and subservience, and I have every confidence in the Black nations of Africa that they will accept this responsibility, voluntarily and with pride.

In the second place we have a fine example in the modern world of what can be done by the so-called migrant labourer. I am referring to the Turkish migrant labourers in West Germany. Fifty thousand of these Turkish migrant labourers invest their savings in shares in no less than 50 industries in Turkey itself, which vary from a mushroom nursery in Anatolia to a high grade cement factory which provides work for 500 employees. There is the closest of co-operation between the Governments of West Germany and Turkey and these migrant labourer shareholders. Now the question is: What is the position in South Africa? I am referring to the Transkei only. In 1973 the total earnings of migrant labourers from the Transkei was R181,1 million. The earnings of the more or less permanent inhabitants from the Transkei in South Africa, for example the farm labourers, was R273,1 million. This gives us a total of R454,2 million. Admittedly this is the earnings only, and not savings. I am aware of the fact that our Blacks, and more specifically the migrant labourers, do not have a clear, or any, realization of the working and advantages of shareholding. I am also aware of the fact that the Blacks are not so savings conscious. But, Sir, I am also aware of the fact that the Chamber of Mines is making purposive attempts, with a high degree of success, to cultivate thrift amongst their labourers. Mr. Lawrence, the chairman of the Chamber of Mines, is able to testify as follows—

In the light of what I have just said, my appeal is that this department launch an intensive, purposive campaign in close cooperation with the various Governments of the homelands and all employers in the Republic, in the first place, to promote thrift amongst our Blacks, and amongst the migrant labourers in particular, and, in the second place, to investigate and to find ways and means to channel the savings of our Blacks into shareholding in industries in the various homelands, under the call “a Nation builds its own future ”.

Mr. Chairman, I have found this a very interesting debate, for various reasons, but there is one thing I cannot understand. Here we are, in the year 1976, on the eve of the birth of a new independent Black State on the borders of the Republic of South Africa. This Black State will be and is supposed to be the show window of the Nationalist Party Government. At this time, too, we find that we are fighting a by-election in the very area of the Republic of South Africa which is going to be cut off and formed into an independent Black State. What surprises me is that where this Government has the opportunity now to explain to the people of South Africa what they can look forward to and what is about to happen, it is conspicuous by its absence. I am referring to Griqualand East in the Transkei. We find that the Government is afraid to fight the election in this area. Yet we find them fighting an election in Alberton. There they talk about NP philosophy, ideology, policies and principles. We find them even in Pinelands here in the Cape talking about their policies and philosophies. In fact, we find them even in Durban North. But, Sir, one would expect to find them also in the heart of the area which is involved, to the letter, in NP policies and philosophies, namely Griqualand East in the Transkei. They are not there. Why are they not there, Sir? One would imagine that this would be a golden opportunity for the Government to say: “Kyk nou, mense; hier is ons. Kyk wat gaan nou in Oktobermaand gebeur ingevolge Nasionale Party-beleid. ” One would imagine that that would happen, but they are not fighting in Griqualand East. Why? Is it because they are afraid? Is it because the Whites reject the policy of the Government in that area? After all, the Whites are the ones who are going to make a decision in the by-election in Griqualand East.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested also to hear the speech of the hon. member for Aliwal. There was a lot in what he had to say, and I agreed with much of what he said. He pleaded, and quite rightly so, on behalf of his voters. Many of them are agriculturalists who are today suffering under the Government’s policy, because it has changed its mind due to a lack of funds and has not been able to consolidate the land. We have always maintained, and I for one have always said, that there is no better investment in South Africa than an investment in land. Here we find agriculturalists who have invested in ground and who have been let down. It is only natural that the hon. member representing these people should plead with the hon. the Minister this evening on their behalf. We on this side agree with him wholeheartedly. This is something which we have been trying to do for a very long time, without success.

The hon. member for Aliwal also pleaded for people who are suffering under NP policy, but who live outside the Transkei, in the White corridor between the Transkei and the Ciskei. Mr. Chairman, if this policy is affecting the people outside the Transkei, how much more is it not affecting those inside the Transkei, for instance in areas such as Port St. Johns? Have hon. members opposite ever sat down to think about those people inside the Transkei who are affected?

Mr. Chairman, in the short time at my disposal I want to discuss something which is worrying many of us in the Eastern Cape, namely the Bantu Administration Boards. As most of us know, all Bantu administration departments were withdrawn from the local governments in the Eastern Cape as long ago as 1 September 1973. We who watched this process believed that this was possibly the right thing to do. In the particular area which I am thinking of, namely the White corridor between the Transkei and the Ciskei, that long, narrow corridor stretching from East London right up to the Orange River at Aliwal North, it was decided that Queenstown should be the headquarters of the Bantu Administration Board. One of the terms of reference related to housing for the Black people, a very important project. There has, however, been a problem from the outset ever since this particular board was formed, I must admit that there are areas where the boards are functioning successfully to a degree but there are also areas where the boards are a hopless failure. That is the case with this board in the Eastern Cape. The main complaint as is stated both by members of the board and by the public, is that the board is not able to carry out its task of providing housing, etc., due to the lack of funds. This is a very serious problem. We know that the department is not financing the Bantu Administration Boards. They are financed by levies placed upon employees in respect of their employees. In the urban areas, as we know, the employers are levied R1,80 per employee per month. In the case of agriculture the levy is 40 cents per labourer per month. While on the subject I may mention that because of the lack of funds and because of the lack of staff I for one am two years in arrears with my levy. Over Easter I was warned about it.

*I was told: “Mr. Wainwright, at the moment you are two years in arrears with your levy.” I told them to let me have it in writing and I would pay the amount with the greatest of pleasure. They do not have the staff to do so, however, and I am still waiting for my written account. There is no point in informing me orally to pay the levy. I want it in writing, but unfortunately they do not have the staff to do so. Otherwise, what is the reason for this?

†I, and many members of the public want to know what good purpose these boards are serving today. There must be a reckoning of this; we must ask ourselves what purpose they are serving. We hear that they are supposed to provide housing, and all that, but are the Black people really benefiting by it? They are, after all is said and done, the people who should really benefit, because this is what it is all about. It is not about the White people but about the Black people. Yet they are not benefiting at all. One only has to go to the agricultural congresses of the Eastern Cape to hear the resolutions that are taken year after year. I want to quote one, taken by the Eastern Agricultural Union’s annual congress, at East London. This resolution was put forward in 1974 by the Thomas River Farmers’ Association

This was one resolution. No services are provided. Here is another resolution, put forward by the Victoria East Farmers’ Association:

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London North must please pardon me if I do not follow up directly on what he said; I think the hon. the Minister will give attention to his problems. Separate development is, in spite of everything which is being said from that side of the House, the only internal policy which can be adopted to stabilize ethnic relations. The socio-political changes in South Africa and in the world around us, however, are leading rapidly to a point where the strategy of radical leftist elements could succeed suddenly and completely unless we take positive action and implement our policy over the short term. One of the basic requirements that has to be complied with to cause this policy to succeed, is that the preponderance of each specific Black population group should be established within its own political and constitutional context, and that Whites should become a growing majority in their own country. In 1970 it was calculated that an average of 48% of the Black populations were present in the homelands. Since considerable and rapid progress has been made with political separation, the physical separation, i.e. the establishment of people in their respective father-lands, has now become the imperative and predominant task.

There are two methods in particular by means of which this task can be carried out. These are in the first place by means of a rapid pace of economic development in and near the homelands and, in the second place, rapid transportation from strategic places within the homelands to areas within White South Africa where heavy demand for labour exists.

Rapid transportation can be introduced in two ways, depending on specific circumstances. In the first place there is transportation on a daily basis, where commuters live and spend their nights within the homeland, and work in the White area, and in the second place, transportation on a weekend basis, where Black workers will spend the weekends with their families, and will be accommodated during the week as single persons in the White area.

The number of commuters is estimated to have increased from 290 800 in 1970 to 557 400 in 1975. The income earned by commuters in 1973-’74 represented 19,9% of the internal income of homelands, and this graph continues to show an upward tendency. The commuting system is therefore in demand, and it can be expanded as accommodation is provided in the homelands and transport facilities are established.

This system has many advantages. It reduces the incidence of unemployment in the homelands; it enables the Black worker to come into regular contact with the Western pattern of living without being wrested entirely from his own cultural context. Furthermore, by working in a White area and living in his homeland, it will be possible for a greater portion of his earnings to be spent in the homeland. Commuting also enables the Black worker to live in his own country in a family context.

However, to be able to establish rapid transportation and commuter transportation, there are certain basic requirements which will have to be complied with. For daily commuter transportation it is in the first place imperative that workers in that homelands, be concentrated within towns or cities in that homeland, so that the time taken to reach the starting point of the transportation system will be reduced to a minimum. In addition these cities and towns will have to be situated within the homelands in such a way that workers can be conveyed to their places of employment within a reasonable period of time. According to international standard it is accepted that a maximum time of 90 minutes from home to place of work is socially acceptable. Under South African circumstances, with conventional means of transportation, this represents a distance of approximately 70 to 100 km.

To cause this policy of commuter traffic to succeed, it will also be necessary for places of employment to be highly concentrated so that the time taken to reach them from the terminus of this transportation system will also in turn be reduced to a minimum. To cause commuter transportation to succeed, labour zoning will also have to be introduced so that certain areas of employment will depend on certain homelands. With labour zoning it will also be possible over a long period, to limit the Bantu populations of each Bantu administration area to one or two ethnic groups, the advantage of this, in turn, will be that it will create opportunities for the promotion of culture, ethnically orientated education, and liaison with the homeland. To cause this policy of commuter traffic to succeed, it will also be necessary for work to be demarcated in such a way that the Blacks who are willing to live within the homeland and work in a White are able to benefit from this. Such a worker should also be afforded the opportunity of acquiring higher education and being paid higher wages within the area in which he is allowed to work than his counterpart who still wishes to remain in the White area. In this way the bright lights which are still beckoning in the White towns and cities will gradually be shifted to the homeland towns and cities.

However, it could immediately be alleged now that rapid transportation and commuter traffic cannot be afforded. The fact of the matter is, however, that we should also bear in mind that the provision of housing for Blacks in the White area is also going to cost a great deal of money. It is calculated that between now and the year 2000 an amount of R3 357,4 million will be required to provide accommodation for Blacks in the White area. If towns are developed in the homelands, on land which is being purchased by the S.A. Bantu Trust in any event, an amount of at least R1 234 million could be saved in this way. If this money could be employed for the establishment of rapid transportation services, it has been calculated that roads for rapid transportation covering a distance of 6 180 km could be established.

That is why I believe that the promotion of rapid transportation and the expansion of commuter traffic, by means of which the Black man can realize his political and social aspirations within his homeland and in addition still work and earn a living in the White area, is one of the instruments which has to be created to ensure the continued success of the policy of separate development. Planning and reflection on the highest possible level on this important matter could transform a dream-world concept into a concept of a practicable idealism, but then this matter now requires our urgent attention.

Mr. Chairman, on this occasion I should like to reply a little more comprehensively to the questions which have been put since this afternoon. Unfortunately I omitted the hon. member for Vryheid, who is not present here now either—I understand why—by accident the first time I rose. He broached a matter which the hon. member for Aliwal also raised this evening in regard to the acquisition of farm land for the Bantu Trust by additional methods of financing. Hon. members will recall that I discussed this a little this afternoon and said that legislation in this regard could be expected in the present session because the Cabinet considered it necessary to find supplementary methods for the appropriation of money by Parliament. The point which the hon. member for Vryheid raised was in regard to loan powers for the S.A. Bantu Trust. The hon. member for Aliwal, whom I shall come to in a moment, also raised this point this afternoon. I can inform the hon. member for Vryheid, in his absence, that a good deal of what he proposed will probably materialize, although not immediately and on such a large scale perhaps as he in his great enthusiasm suggested this afternoon. Therefore we shall hear more about it later this session.

I come now to the hon. member for Albany, who also spoke this afternoon. I see that he is not present, but it does not matter because he can simply look up my reply later. I have to look up the Hansards of so many members that he could also look up mine tomorrow, the day after or next week. I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for not being here. I realize that hon. members cannot always be present. There are all kinds of reasons why we sometimes have to be absent. I think that it was with a measure of wilfulness that the hon. member asked me whether labour agreements have to be concluded with the Transkei—I referred to that this afternoon—or whether this would be done in precisely the same way as the agreement which we concluded with Mozambique, the great advantage of which is that part of the labour is paid for with gold. I think it was wilfulness on the part of the hon. member to have worded the question in that way. He ought to know that, apart from the agreement with Mozambique, we also have agreements with other territories. For example, we also have agreements with Lesotho, Rhodesia, Malawi and various other countries. None of the agreements with those other countries include such a provision, i.e. that a portion should be paid for in gold. I do not think the hon. member need fear that anything of that nature will occur in regard to the Transkei.

The hon. member also had a few things to say about the purchase of properties in the Transkei. He also advocated the idea of debentures. As I said here a moment ago, it is hoped that something will still come of it later this session.

The hon. member then asked me to do something which I can hardly take upon myself. I think that he, as representative of an agricultural constituency, is in a very good position to do something about it himself. His request was that I, as Minister, should put in a plea on behalf of younger farmers who had to give up land which was purchased from them by the S.A. Bantu Trust, so that they, in turn, could be assisted by the Department of Agriculture to obtain other land or to obtain financial assistance for the purchase of land. If the hon. member reflects on the matter again I think he will admit that it is really not my task. However, I can tell the hon. member that we have been doing something of this nature for years. If the Bantu Trust purchases land from farmers in certain districts, the details in this regard are made known to the Department of Agriculture so that this department may act as it deems fit with reference to such cases. But to the best of my knowledge the department of Agriculture is not committed to doing certain things in this regard.

The hon. member also cross-questioned me on Committees Drift and returned to the subject of Peddie. He wanted to know why we did not rather establish all the people in Fingo Town and have to be established elsewhere, in a place like Peddie. I want to indicate very clearly what our attitude to this matter has been throughout. We do not want to prevent the people in Fingo Town from going to live in Peddie if they are able to live there and from there conveniently reach their place of employment in Grahamstown. We do not want to move people in Grahamstown to a remote place of abode from where it would be difficult or expensive for them to reach their place of employment in Grahamstown. The hon. member knows that part of the world well, and I also know what I am talking about, for I travelled there to investigate the position. I also went to Committees Drift. Committees Drift is the nearest place to Grahamstown in which a Bantu township can be established in a homeland; it is closer than many other places. We do not want the people to lose their work in Grahamstown. If there are other people for whom it is not necessary to go to work in Grahamstown every day, and they prefer not to go to live in Committees Drift, but somewhere else in the Ciskei Territory, we shall help to make it possible for them to do so. We shall not compel such people to go and live in Committees Drift. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that it will not be possible to undertake the re-settlement undertaking without Committees Drift. I have already replied to the other questions of the hon. member, but rather than repeat them now, I prefer the hon. member to read the replies in Hansard, if he does not mind.

I want to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Klip River. His request was that an industrial centre such as the one at Babalegi should be developed in a Bantu area near Izakele in the vicinity of Ladysmith. In principle his plea is quite acceptable, but he must not imagine now that we shall commence the project next month. I can give him no indication of when we will be able to commence that project. But I think, if I may put it in this way, that it is “practical music” for the future. We would be only too eager to develop such industrial centres at all places which displayed the viability for that purpose. In my opinion there are certainly signs of viability for such development in the area to which the hon. member referred. However, Rome was not built in a day, and the hon. member’s centre will not be built in a day either.

Very well then, I shall wait two weeks for it.

I also agree with the misgivings of the hon. member. In fact, I have already stated in public and I have, with the best intentions, stated it individually to the Bantu leaders, that they should weigh their words twice and even ten times over before they make statements in regard to economic policy and economic matters, since such a statement could deter industrialists from going to the Bantu homelands. I have shown certain Bantu leaders examples of overseas industrialists who were deterred from doing so because of all kinds of statements which certain Bantu leaders made. I think the hon. member’s warning was quite appropriate.

If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for East London City, in his first speech this afternoon, expressed doubts in passing concerning the amount which I had furnished as being the income produced from the leasing and sale of properties in the Transkei that had been taken over. I put the amount at R800 000.

I mentioned that in my second speech.

Oh, did the hon. member refer to it in his second speech? Well, I do not know whether the hon. gentleman will question the Auditor-General’s amount, but he puts it at R31 000 above the figure I put it at. He said that R831 000 had been produced last year.

No.

Well, that is the amount furnished by the Auditor-General, and the hon. member will simply have to fight it out with him.

The hon. member also asked me what the position in regard to share capital was. I can furnish him with the necessary figures. If I understood him correctly, he asked what the 1975-’76 allocation to the XDC was, and what it would be for the current financial year. The figures are as follows: Up to 31 March 1975 the share capital of the XDC amounted to R63,6 million. For 1975-’76, an amount of R24,75 million was added, and for 1976-’77 a further amount of R27,21 million will be added. The grand total on 31 March 1977 will therefore amount to R115,735 million.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us where we can find those figures?

They are not detailed in the budget and I obtained them from my department. These figures are detailed in the accounts of the Bantu Trust, but those accounts are not submitted to the House. However, if a correctly framed question is put on the Order Paper, a reply will always be forthcoming. This brings me to the next aspect of the hon. member’s speech.

*I am referring now to the question in regard to which the hon. member, as nearly as was possible without contravening the rules of this House, made me out to be a liar.

No, that I did not do.

The hon. member put the reply which I furnished before this House and said that I had been wilful, or too useless, and I do not know what else, because I did not want to reply to his questions.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, keep quiet at the back there! The hon. member is not even in the kitchen.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. the Minister refer to an hon. member as not being in the kitchen? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Whip agrees with me that I said that that hon. member is not even in the kitchen.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Does that remark not constitute a reflection upon the hon. members on the cross-benches?

Mr. Chairman, surely I did not refer to any part of this House.

But you do know that those benches comprise the kitchen.

No, in my opinion the hon. member is now casting a reflection on a part of the House. I, on the other hand, referred to the kitchen of a restaurant or of an hotel.

The hon. member for East London City, as I said, attacked me with reference to my reply to a question which he put. I replied to the question some time ago, but in the meantime I have caused the particulars in regard to that question to be looked up. The hon. member will simply have to accept my word for it, even though he does not like to do so. The manner in which he put his question made it impossible for us to give him a precise reply. The question dealt with amounts and figures, and we have to furnish a responsible reply to it. Questions are frequently put in a manner which makes it very difficult for us since it is not possible to furnish precise replies according to the various categories stated in the question. I have no objection to furnishing the hon. member with precise details in the case in question but then the question should be drawn up in such a way that I can reply to it conveniently. There are certain questions— hon. members themselves can think of enough examples—to which one dare not give a reply. I am referring to questions on certain confidential matters or certain aspects which ought not, for various reasons, to be made public. If such questions are put, I state in this House, that the desired information cannot be made public, and I also indicate why it is not desirable for the information to be furnished. However, when I say that the desired information cannot “readily” be furnished, the hon. member must accept that we are experiencing problems with the question. In order to furnish a reply to the question concerned, my department would have had to draw and page through more than 200 files, one at a time. Those 200 files were not lying neatly together so that they could be drawn in consecutive sequence; they were in circulation. My department is a big department with different branches. Sometimes the files circulate from one building to another and from time to time they are also sent to Cape Town because the Secretary needs them. That is one of the reasons why a considerable period of time elapsed before a reply could be furnished to the written question of the hon. member.

It was not possible for us to furnish a really reliable reply to the question. I want to make an offer to the hon. member, to which he could give sympathetic consideration. If the hon. member really wants to obtain certain information concerning the matter on which he put that question, I suggest that he goes to see the secretary of my department tomorrow, or whenever he can and tell him precisely what he wants. We shall then try to furnish him with the particulars. The hon. member could even place a formal question, indicating precisely what information he desires, on the Order Paper. The hon. member must take my word for it that in the manner in which he put the question it was not possible for the replies to be furnished according to the categories he stated. It frequently happens that such questions are put, and the hon. member’s question is therefore not the only one.

I come next to the hon. member for Sandton again, who had quite a lot to say about Alexandra. It so happens that I know the history and the nature of Alexandra very well, for I worked with it myself for years, formerly as Deputy Minister, and now as well. I agree that conditions there are not as one would like to have them or even as they are in Thembisa and certain other Bantu townships. One of the reasons for this is that Alexandra is at present in a state of transition.

Yes.

The hon. member agrees with me that the area is at present in a state of transition. The old situation is being converted into a new situation. The process can lead to unfortunate consequences. The hon. member complained about the fact that there are insufficient recreational facilities. I agree with that. A few years ago, when Alexandra was being replanned, the secretary of the department, a few other officials, and I made provision for land to be allocated for proper recreational facilities in the north-eastern part of Alexandra, along the stream. The Johannesburg City Council was also of assistance in this regard. Such amenities have therefore been planned for Alexandra, but it is not possible to do everything at once. The hon. member knows that to organize such matters requires money, time and manpower. There is a great deal that has to be done in regard to Alexandra.

The hon. member also referred to recreational facilities for Sandton, which I had allegedly refused. That is entirely correct. I know about it. We refused Sandton’s request because they wanted to establish those recreational facilities for Alexandra in Sandton, far away from Alexandra. It is not the policy to establish recreational facilities of that kind for the Bantu outside their community area and in the community area of the Whites. For that reason we refused the application for recreational amenities. However, if Sandton wishes to assist the administration board with the establishment of recreational amenities within Alexandra, I am certain that the board will give attention to the matter. Neither the administration board nor the department would refuse such a request. However, they must not ask for those recreational amenities to be provided in Sandton.

The hon. member concluded with a plea to the effect that we should please give consideration to a new urban Bantu residential area in the northern parts. The idea of establishing an urban Bantu residential area in the vicinity of Diepkloof, or wherever it may be, is not accéptable at all to the department at present, and I cannot see that it will ever be acceptable in future. The planning of urban Bantu residential areas must be fitted as an entirety into the complex which already exists, i.e. Soweto, Alexandra, Thembisa, the others more to the east, and then of course those further north towards Pretoria. However, I as Minister can see no possibility of another area in that part of the world, and I know those areas very well.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it is going to take many years for Alexandra to be cleared in terms of Government policy and because there are, in fact, going to be up to 50 000 people living there for the duration of that period—possibly ten years—is it not possible, since Alexandra has been in existence all these years, at least to fix up the roads and keep the place clean of refuse and rubbish.

Yes, it is entirely possible, and the hon. the Deputy Minister who is now dealing with this aspect himself, listened very attentively to the hon. member’s request. I think that we may with confidence leave the matter in his hands. If any improvement in this connection is possible, I am certain that he will not disappoint our expectations. There is of course the restricting factors of money, manpower, etc.

I want to tell the hon. member for Westdene that I was pleased at what he raised here this afternoon in regard to social services for the Bantu, because it is definitely our policy. We are doing this within the homelands and also in the White areas, and therefore administration boards also have to help enable the Bantu themselves, to an increasing extent, to establish and expand their social services, their welfare organizations and even their professional organizations, so that they can help themselves. I think it was the hon. member for Kimberley North who said here that a nation should, when all is said and done, be able to help itself. This is what we want to advocate in this case as well.

I need say nothing about Clermont, near Pinetown. In my opinion the vendetta between the hon. member and the hon. the Deputy Minister ended very satisfactorily, in favour of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister please reply to what I said in my speech in regard to the Ndwedwe magisterial area?

I am sorry, I did not follow that point very well. I shall look it up in Hansard and possibly deal with it tomorrow if there is time.

This evening the hon. member for Bryanston presented the most striking example in the history of this House of what I want to call “cock-eyed politics” or “hybridized thinking”. Here we had a striking example of his muddled thinking, in other words of how different political systems and ideas can contaminate one another. He expects us, within the framework of our policy of separate development, to do things which he, as an ultra-leftist PRP member, wants done according to his policy. This is a completely erroneous polarization of political systems and political thought But that hon. member is not an undeveloped fellow. He ought therefore to be able to think out and understand such things. However, he comes here and asks us why the Blacks in the White area cannot do the same kind of things as the Whites. He also enumerated quite a number of examples here. Surely the hon. member must realize that according to our policy of separate development, as I tried to sketch it here again this afternoon, the separate nations each have their own national area, and that this area, White South Africa, is the area of the Whites.

The Bantu who are present here are not here under the same circumstances as those under which he and I and other Whites are present here. We are primary in the White area, while the Bantu are secondary here. In the homelands the Bantu will in turn be primary and the Whites secondary. Therefore, there is no possibility of the Bantu having to be able, or being allowed, to do everything in the White area which the Whites are doing here. This is not consistent with our political thinking, and the hon. member must not try to draft his political thinking onto us, or expect us to do what he thinks. That is not how arguments are conducted here. The hon. member must come to grips with us in regard to our policy and try to prove our policy to be fundamentally incorrect, or he must tell us that we are not in all areas acting in the interests of the Bantu in accordance with our policy. He must spur us on to greater heights within the framework of our policy, and not within the framework of his policy. Otherwise it is a completely illogical political approach. In addition I must add that the hon. member seems to understand nothing about this, even though he is a developed person. He does not understand at all what we mean by this differentiation and discrimination, for the things which the hon. member enumerated here this afternoon are not discrimination. It is not discrimination to tell the Bantu that they are living in Soweto, while that hon. member is living in Bryanston. That is not discrimination in White South Africa. It is differentiation, a distinction which we draw between people who do not have equality of claim with the Whites in this homeland. The same applies to the franchise. It is not discrimination to tell the Bantu that they do not have franchise for this Parliament. In the White area of South Africa the Whites are primary and they have the sole rights here, not the Bantu. This is differentiation, a distinction which we draw between people who do not have equality of claim. Discrimination, however, is to draw a distinction between people who do in fact have equality of claim, and that is the basis of the political policy of the PRP. It is they who tell these people that they are receiving all rights, but manipulate matters behind the scenes to enable the Whites to stay on top. That is discrimination.

Why do you not apply that differentiation to foreign non-Whites as well?

I want to tell that talkative, wandering hon. member that I have in fact applied it to foreigners, and that is more than he can say. I did so only yesterday, in the building across the street. However, those people can understand it, but that hon. member does not want to understand it.

You are not doing it.

In any event, the hon. member ought to know that he cannot speak in this House while he is sitting on his behind!

Yes, but you are not prepared to reply to my questions!

Order!

Is it differentiation or discrimination if a White foreigner has different rights to a Black foreigner?

Order!

The hon. member is becoming annoyed now …

I repeat my question.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must stop making interjections now.

I just want to tell the hon. member …

You do not want to reply.

The hon. member for Yeoville must please stop making interjections now.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that he must not think that he is now on the old UP Executive Committee here, where he could become annoyed at other people just as he pleased. He is sitting here now, becoming annoyed at himself. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I referred earlier to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. I said that we may possibly pass measures during the present session which would authorize additional financing with a view to the purchase of land. The hon. member said—and I am in agreement with him—that he has considerable sympathy with all the people who have to sell their land. For that very reason the Government is devising additional plans in order to dispose of matters more smoothly and rapidly. The hon. member went on to say that as a third method he wanted to propose the raising of a foreign loan. This is a matter which has already been discussed in Government circles but I believe that we should first wait to see what progress is made through the employment of the old method, as well as of the two new methods which are being contemplated. If it subsequently appears that there is justification for the method he proposed, the hon. member may rest assured that Government thinking is entirely dynamic enough to give attention to that possibility as well. At this stage therefore we shall not proceed to do that.

Furthermore the hon. member put another request to me, one which I find completely understandable when it is made by a person from his part of the world. The hon. member requested that the Government should please, in heaven’s name, purchase the farms adjoining the Transkei first. Has the hon. member seen how people scream and shout in this House when preferential consideration has to be applied, and how the preferential consideration which the Government applies is never correct in the eyes of members opposite? I realize that there is a good deal of merit in his request but I do not want to give the hon. member a firm undertaking. All I want to tell him is that I have heard his request. [Interjections.]

I have already replied to the speech made by the hon. member for East London City. I want to express my gratitude to the hon. member for False Bay for all the true statements he made here this evening. It is good that people should hear what trouble they are causing at a place like Crossroads. I discussed this myself on one occasion, but it is clear to me that the hon. member for False Bay knows a little more than I do about all the malpractices on the part of the mischief-makers at Crossroads. We hope it reaches the ears of the right people.

The hon. member for East London North referred to the functions of the Bantu Administration Boards. He was particularly concerned about one matter, that the boards are not rendering sufficient, are in some cases rendering no services to the agricultural sector. It is in fact true that the rural areas, where our farms are, only came under the organizational control of Bantu Administration Boards during the past few years. From personal discussions which I have had and from documents which I received for perusal, I know that the administration boards are already giving serious attention to how they can be of assistance to the farmers in the rural areas. All kinds of aids have already been introduced. For example mobile administration offices have been put into operation. Assistance is also being rendered with the establishment of accommodation on farms, methods of registration and all kinds of other matters. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the administration boards are generally aware of the task they have to perform and of the assistance which they have to render to farmers in the rural areas, the more so because they are also contributing to a pruning of administrative costs.

Mr. Chairman, after the first reply by the hon. the Minister this afternoon, some measure of disappointment was expressed by some of the younger members of this hon. House. They were disappointed with the nature of the hon. the Minister’s reply. I was not disappointed, because I am already used to getting this type of reply from him. He evades all the issues and, when embarrassed, invariably calls upon members on this side not to become excited. [Interjections.]

Yes, hit and run!

I must admit that the figures I gave reflecting payments to the Transkei contradicted those given by the hon. the Minister in his reply to me. According to him, the figures reflected in the capital expenditure estimates for the Transkei this year were R30 million more than last year’s figures. My contention was that the present figures exceeded those of last year by R60 million. I have since had the system of accounting explained to me by the staff of the department, and found that I took one figure twice. If I have thereby embarrassed the hon. the Minister, I regret it. I must add, though, that if he was embarrassed, it was because of his own ignorance. After all, I gave him the numbers of the pages I was referring to, and if the hon. the Minister himself could not detect the error I was making, I suggest he should pay more attention to his own accounts. [Interjections.]

I did find it!

I am sorry, but if the hon. the Minister found it, he should have pointed it out to me at the time. [Interjections.] I must say, however, that the hon. the Minister has not answered my questions. With regard to certain information he gave me tonight, I would like to know where he got it from. I am asking him this now in all ignorance, and I would like him to tell me. The hon. member for East London City referred to the hon. the Minister’s remark that R800 000 would be available for the purchase of properties in the Transkei by the Adjustment Committee this year. It was an estimate of what would be available from the purchase price of land sold by the Trust to Bantu of trading stations. The hon. the Minister said …

Business and properties.

Business and properties. And the hon. the Minister said that the hon. member for East London City had grossly underestimated the amount that would be available. He said that over R1 million would be available. What was the hon. the Minister’s reply? The hon. the Minister referred to the report by the Auditor-General. I want to point out that the hon. member for East London City said that last year only R175 000 was received by the Trust. He obtained that figure from the Auditor-General’s report, and I am going to refer the hon. the Minister to the correct page. I am talking about the latest report, the one for 1974-’75, which, I believe, the hon. the Minister also has. On page 562 he will see that, until 31 March 1975, 22 properties purchased for R350 498 were, with ministerial authority, sold to Bantu at a total price of R175 588. The member for East London City questioned the figure of R800 000, which the hon. the Minister said would be available this year.

From what paragraph did you read now?

From page 562, the first column, para. (ii).

I read from paragraph (i), where you will see the figure of R131 000.

But, Mr. Chairman

Mr. Chairman, we are speaking of different things now.

Mr. Chairman, here it says that until 31 March 1975, 22 properties purchased with ministerial authority were sold to Bantu at a total price of R175 588.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal explanation I said here earlier today that I expected that round about R800 000 could be received in the form of leases and sales. Thereupon the hon. member for East London City …

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is taking up my time.

Order! I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. the Minister to make a speech now.

I do not mind giving way, Sir. I just do not want the hon. the Minister to intrude upon my time.

Mr. Chairman, I shall answer the hon. member on that point at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. the Minister is referring to in para, (i), I believe, is the figure of R1 853 346. That figure, Sir, was a balance carried over. It was not money that was received.

I never spoke of that figure at all.

Well, I hope the hon. the Minister will explain that.

You are dreaming while you are standing there.

Don’t you talk to me like that! I am merely quoting what you said. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister attacked the hon. member for East London City for giving the wrong figures. I am now quoting from the report by the Auditor-General, which proves that figure to be correct. I would really like to know why the hon. the Minister does not answer questions that are put to him. Why does he evade questions that are put to him? [Interjections.] Why does the hon. the Minister not answer my question with regard to what was going to happen to the Whites in the Transkei? I put a number of questions to him, but he did not reply to one of them. He replied to the hon. member for Aliwal North, sympathized with him, smiled at him and said that he would see what he could do about satisfying the landowners in his constituency. That hon. member is worried about the farmers in his constituency, because they border on the Transkei. I know they are worried, because they phoned me too. How much more worried should I not be about the people who live in the Transkei? [Interjections.]

If the hon. the Minister is worried about assisting the people living in the constituency of the hon. member for Aliwal North, he should be more than worried about assisting the people living in my constituency, because they are the people who are being affected. The hon. the Minister did not answer one of the questions I put to him. For instance, I asked the hon. the Minister who was going to have the say in the Transkei after independence about what alterations should be made to property and what leases could be entered into. They are South African citizens who live in the Transkei and who own property there. They cannot get out and sell their properties, because the Government does not buy them. The hon. the Minister says that he has set aside R3½ million, but that if I look at the accounts I shall see that they have reduced expenditure in all the other departments.

However, that is not the point. The people living in the Transkei are different from anybody else. They are being thrust into a foreign country by this hon. Minister. He had no right to reduce the amount; he should have increased it. What he should have done, was to give an assurance to the people of the Transkei that those who want to go, will be able to go. The instalment plan is to be applied in the rest of South Africa in buying purchased land, but not, he told us, in the Transkei. The people in the Transkei are a neglected people and the hon. the Minister should not resent it if we accuse him of neglecting us and throwing us to the wolves in the Transkei. I want to ask the hon. the Minister another question: Are the non-Transkeians to be taxed by the Transkeian Government as it likes? It must be remembered that these people cannot get out. This Government has thrust them into a new country and they cannot get out. Are those people who own shares to be treated as non-resident taxpayers? The hon. the Minister has not answered any of these questions. We want protection, but from whom are we to get the protection? To whom do we look after 26 October? The Transkeian Government can do what it likes and those people cannot get out. They are captives in the Transkei because of the Government’s policy. The Government has placed them in that position and therefore the Government should see to it that those people who want to get out, can get out. That is our accusation against the Government, namely that they have thrown us to the wolves and have done nothing to protect the Whites in that proclaimed territory.

Mr. Chairman, this evening I should like to confine myself briefly to the tasks of the Bantu Administration Boards and to what has thus far been achieved by them. I myself had the privilege of playing an active role in these boards ever since their establishment. These Bantu Administration Boards are now three years old. Twenty-two of these boards have already been formed and their members have been drawn from 400 local authorities and approximately 90 divisional councils. In addition there is a staff of 7 182 Whites, 37 222 Blacks: A total of 44 402. One then begins to realize that the initial years of the Bantu Administration Boards had to be devoted to the organization of their staff. I should like to pay tribute to the members of these boards tonight and to the officials who, in the initial years of the Bantu Administration Boards, assisted in their development with so much dedication.

Bantu Administration Boards play an important role in ethnic relations. The major function of the boards is to furnish proof of registration. They also undertake the administration and provide labour to all sectors of the national economy when requested to do so. In White areas this takes place within the framework of prescribed directives, regulations, laws and standards. These functions are performed via the employment bureaux in the various divisions.

Some of these Bantu Administration Boards are installing computers. With the aid of computers information concerning the demand and availability of labour can be made available almost immediately. The plan is to record at least 32 elements relating to each registered Bantu. This includes an employer’s record, ethnic affiliation, tribal affiliation, chief’s affiliation, identity number, residential address in White areas and if he lives in the homeland, his address there, salary, qualifications, his payments for services such as electricity and water, etc. Through the establishment of Bantu Administration Boards the Black worker has been afforded increased mobility. This has advantages for both the employer and employee because the restrictions on the movement of Black workers are now fewer.

Bantu Administration Boards also play a part in regard to accommodation. The Boards build houses and control single persons as well as family units. We agree that there is a shortage of accommodation, but it is also a fact that there is a shortage of accommodation and money among all population groups. Therefore I should like to appeal to the private sector to assist the Bantu Administration Boards in their handling of accommodation. Large firms after all do their best to provide accommodation for their White workers. Apart from this the Bantu Administration Boards have assisted in building houses for Black workers of the farming community. At the end of last year the first houses built by the Bantu Administration Boards in the vicinity of Heidelberg in the Transvaal were occupied. The Bantu Administration Boards also regulate the influx control and not only as far as industrial and artisan labourers are concerned, but also as far as domestic servants are concerned. As far as this matter is concerned, the time has now arrived when we as Whites should realize that it is unfair to expect a Black house servant to bring us coffee in bed in the morning and to wash up after supper while we are relaxing with our families. The Black worker is also entitled to a social life with his family in the evenings. He is also entitled to share his cultural, religious, sporting and recreational activities in his own residential area in the evenings and over weekends.

Bantu Administration Boards are also responsible for the brewing and distribution of sorghum beer, which forms part of the diet of Black people. It also forms part of their culture. Sorghum beer for instance plays an important part at their birth, marriage and funeral ceremonies. The Bantu Administration Boards also actively participate in homeland development, at this stage mainly the development of Bantu towns, from where they draw most of their labour. For this reason the Bantu Administration Boards are investigating rapid transportation between the township area and the homelands. It will be possible for a Black worker to be with his family in the homelands within four hours over weekends. Therefore, we see that the Bantu Administration Boards play an important role, firstly for the Blacks, but also for the White employee.

Mr. Chairman, it struck me that up to this point in the debate very positive reference has been made to the development aspect of the policy of multinational development. We have listened to positive speeches dealing with accommodation and the activities of the Bantu Administration Boards. The hon. member for Ladybrand referred very extensively to the agricultural development which has already taken place. Reference has also been made to mining development and industrial development. However, there is one aspect which has not yet received much attention, namely the role which commerce and services is playing in the homelands and the development which is taking place in that field. Economic development in the homelands during the past 25 years has been remarkable. When one travels through the homelands and talks to the people, one observes that a kind of Black middle-class has developed and is expanding very rapidly. I remember very clearly, when I practised at Warmbad on the border of a homeland in the year 1960, how I dealt with many applications of Black traders for trader’s licences. In those years they still had difficulty in making a start with the establishment of a trade practice. I eventually had so many applications that I could furnish them with a copy of a plan of a small building which they could erect as a start. Now, it so happens that when I am in the constituency every recess, I come across one or two or three of them. They previously came to see me occasionally, each one is now driving his own pick-up and has made notable progress. I think this is very good.

The buying power of homeland inhabitants has more than doubled over a period of five years, i.e. from R424,7 million in 1970-’71 to more than R924,8 million in 1974-’75. This says a great deal for the development in the commercial sphere in the homelands. It is estimated that the Black market at the end of the century will be twice the size of the total consumer market in South Africa today. In the mobilization of as much buying power as possible for homeland development, commerce and services may also play a tremendous role. The number of traders has increased from 3 900 in 1961 to more than 9 500 in 1975. This is the position today. Fifteen years ago the position was not worth mentioning. I have a list here, but it will perhaps be too time-consuming if I were to quote it to hon. members. However, I may just mention that most of the traders are in the Transkei. In the Transkei alone there are today 2 592 traders of this type. This includes general dealers, butchers, fresh produce dealers, coal dealers and others. Actually, there are more in KwaZulu, namely 3 416. In Lebowa there are 1 380.

One asks oneself how they managed to reach their present level. This was of course accomplished with the assistance which they received from the development corporations. The BIC, which was established in 1959, performed a gigantic task. The XDC, which was established in 1966, also established many things for the people and meant a great deal to them. All of us who live near the homelands know that certain leakages occur in regard to the traders. All the Black people in the homelands unfortunately do not yet buy from their local traders. There are two reasons for this. Firstly the White trader has more trading skill. He has more to offer, and for that reason the Black man goes to the White trader’s shop to do business. Secondly many homeland towns are close to White areas, and for that reason Black buyers prefer to do business in the White areas. Therefore it is good that it is the Government’s policy to establish future Black towns and trading centres within the homelands as far as possible. In 1955 there were only three Black towns of any appreciable size in the homelands. Since 1961, the number of these towns have increased to 36 with the first five-year plan. In 1972 there already were 89 established Bantu towns in the Bantu areas. These Bantu towns may still prove to us that they are the test of the business skill in the trading services in the homelands. Therefore the towns should develop to their full potential. Up to date 82 000 houses have already been built in the towns in the homelands so that the people may settle there. More than 500 business premises, where people may establish their business enterprises, are in use in the homelands. This will of course mean a great deal to the homelands in future. It is a fact that every population group develops classes. I have just referred to the middle-class among the Black population groups. The trade and services I have thus far referred to, will lead to the further development of this class in the homelands. They will mean a great deal to the new States, like the Transkei which is to be established in October, as far as income for the homelands is concerned. The Black people may own houses in the towns and there are tremendous opportunities for them in the field of trade and services.

However, to deal with the problem of leakage which I have just mentioned, a business formula has been developed which is based upon the agency system, with which we are familiar. Whites may start a trade practice with the Black people and the development corporations. Initially the White man will own a possible 50% of the shares in the business, while the Black man will own 40% and the development and investment corporation 10%. In this way a three-tiered company may be established which may further contribute to the development of the trade and services in the homelands. Such three-tiered companies already exist, among other chain stores. A construction company has already been established on a three-tiered company basis, as well as an insurance company.

In the meantime the development corporations are also continuing to assist the people in the trade and service industries. The development corporations have already granted more than 1 600 loans to Black businessmen. There are also several thousands of Black traders, small traders, who have been given credit on short-term. This is of tremendous importance to them. More business centres are being planned in the homeland towns for the tradesmen. To assist the people, differentiated shopping hours might have to be considered, so that the Black people may buy from their own shops and will not have the excuse that their own shop is closed by the time they get home and therefore have to buy from the White dealer during the day. What is also of great importance, is that the traders perform another very important task in the homelands, in that they act as a middleman. They stimulate productivity in the homelands. The producer in the homelands sells his product to the retail dealers in remote places in the homelands. The retail dealer in turn channelizes the commodities in the right direction. [Time expired.]