as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Civil Protection Bill.

Report and proceedings to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Water Amendment Bill, as follows:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by associating myself with the tribute paid on Friday by the hon. member for Pietersburg to the late Mr. Bezuidenhout, former Commissioner-General for Lebowa. He passed away recently. I should like to associate myself with everything that the hon. member for Pietersburg said about him and I should like to add that our country, the Government and the homeland of Lebowa have lost a man of great insight and a very good worker in the person of Mr. Bezuidenhout.

While I am speaking of the Commissioners-General, I should like to point out that quite a few changes have taken place in the ranks of the Commissioners-General recently. In Umtata—after the Transkei became independent—the post of Commissioner-General fell away, and the former Commissioner-General for the Ciskei, Mr. Potgieter, was sent to the Transkei as South Africa’s ambassador. Mr. Engelbrecht was appointed as the new Commissioner-General for the Ciskei, as hon. members know, he was formerly a member of this House. During the short time that he has been working in the Ciskei, he has already carved a niche for himself and has furnished proof of the good work he is doing there.

Dr. McLachlan, also a former, member of this House, has been appointed as Commissioner-General for the North Sotho in Lebowa. It is striking that former Members of Parliament and Senators who are appointed as Commissioners-General find their feet immediately and render excellent services. They act very efficiently right from the start. I think this is natural, especially if one considers that they do have a great deal of political experience, even if it is experience of a different nature from that which they have to deal with in the homelands.

I also want to point out that the commission of Dr. E. F. Potgieter, who has been Commissioner-General for Gazankulu and the Caprivi for some time, has been revised. In future he will still be Commissioner-General for Gazankulu, but he has also been put in charge of the Swazis in that homeland. The Swazis have already begun to make good progress in the constitutional sphere. The Caprivi, which also used to fall under Dr. Potgieter, has been transferred to Mr. Jan de Wet, Commissioner-General for the other areas in South West Africa. This has been done to make matters function more smoothly. Finally I want to point out that Mr. Torlage, whose task in respect of the Swazis has now been allocated to Dr. Potgieter, is now only working in KwaZulu. The additional obligations upon Mr. Torlage arising out of the increasing duties being created by the Swazis justified his being relieved of that additional task in the future. His work-load in KwaZulu was heavy enough as it was.

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to refer to speeches made by hon. members during the debate on my Vote.

†First of all, I want to refer to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. At the same time I shall deal with some of the matters raised by the hon. member for Edenvale and by the hon. member for Jeppe. The first point I want to touch on is the indictment—if I may call it that—levelled at me by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana by saying that the annual report of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development was rather dull and inadequate. I can assure the hon. member that I have read the report. I read it quite recently, and as far as I am concerned it is not a dull report. The hon. member must bear in mind that I say this notwithstanding the fact that I talk, read, write and work with all matters dealt with in that report. To me, having full knowledge of all the matters dealt with in the report, that is not at all a dull report. The report deals with matters all of which I deal with every day. Perhaps the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is in need of more penny horribles. Of course, he will not get that sort of stuff in a blue book of a department.

The hon. member must also realize that in the Bantu homelands we have to do with semi-independant Bantu areas, homelands with their own Parliaments, with their own departmental administration, with their own Governments responsible and accountable to their own Parliaments. Hon. members in this House cannot expect detailed reports from my department dealing with all those Bantu homelands. That will not be the correct procedure. Hon. members ought to know that. Both my departments give a general resumé on what happened in the Bantu homelands during the year under review. However, that is only for the benefit of hon. members here. Strictly speaking, even that should not be necessary.

[Inaudible.]

I hope that hon. member can follow a good example. He can do so, because he must remember how quiet I was on Friday when the other hon. members spoke. He must try to do the same when I am speaking. [Interjections.] What I said in regard to the Governments of the Bantu homelands also applies to the various national development corporations. As members ought to know, we have, in the last year or more, established a number of these development corporations, corporations for each and every one of the Bantu homelands. In terms of their specific charters and Acts they are all autonomous bodies. They issue their own reports. The question which now arises is whether my department must duplicate all these reports by also issuing reports about the corporations. The other day the hon. member for Umhlatuzana held up a number of these reports. In actual fact, he knew what the reason was for the number of these reports. It is because they are reports about autonomous bodies, each in its own right. I think the hon. member should think about that again. The trouble with the hon. member is, of course, that he fails or refuses to understand the Government’s basis of separation, partitioning and political emancipation of the Black nations on which we have embarked and which we apply as honestly as possible. In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in his speech, I want to say that the Bantu Investment Corporation is a sort of an umbrella corporation guiding and co-ordinating all the other national development corporations. The hon. member will recollect that we have already, some weeks ago, tabled a Bill dealing with this specific matter of what I call an umbrella corporation over all the others.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also referred to the riots of last year and made the accusation against me that I was so silent about the riots.

That is right!

There is another echo in the same vein. It seems to me that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is only accustomed to talking, talking and talking and expects that from me as well. What are the actual facts with regard to our attitude after the riots of last year? At that stage I and other Ministers and Deputy Ministers did say what was necessary to say. However, at the same time we attended to all the practical steps that were called for. It is not only a question of talking, but also of negotiating and acting when it is necessary. I personally had negotiations with Black leaders from various areas.

Tell us about it!

I am busy doing just that. I had negotiations with the Black leaders and the two heads of my department with their assistants also had meetings in all the various departmental regions. Furthermore, our 22 agents, the Bantu Administration Boards, were in continuous contact with the Blacks and with us. That is why they are there. The very reason for their existence is to do that sort of work. Of course, there were also the other Ministers, especially the Minister of Justice, who also had a number of consultations with Black leaders. Some of these meetings were attended by representatives—officials or Deputy Ministers—of my department. I want to repeat here what I said publicly last year, that all the negotiations which we conducted with the Bantu leaders and representatives of Bantu organizations were conducted in a most friendly and constructive spirit. My meetings involved a very wide variety of representatives, for example urban Bantu councillors, school board members, parents, teachers, businessmen, editors, clergy, scholars, and many more. I have not made a list of the occupations of everyone of them.

The hon. member also does not realize and does not know that at that stage, especially after these consultations, it was regarded necessary by all sides not to have it noised abroad who the people were with whom and what the particulars were about which we had discussions and decisions. It was for very obvious reasons that I was asked to do that. I hope the hon. member understands that. I think the hon. member must have been fast asleep all the time if he does not know of our announced intentions with regard to the revision of the urban Bantu councils. We have announced it time and again. I and other members of the Government—the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. Deputy Ministers—have made several statements in that regard. Statements have even been made also by certain officials. That is also what we reported to the Black leaders several times in our discussions with them. I may add that at this stage we hope to table a Bill with regard to the revision of the urban Bantu councils in the very near future. I have been talking about this since last year. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister referred to the possibility of such new legislation in the last session, before the riots.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Just a moment. This also serves as a reply to the hon. member for Jeppe, who put a question to me about this on Friday. The hon. member for Pinetown may now ask his question.

Will the urban Bantu councils be allowed to levy rates and taxes and borrow money?

The new legislation we will introduce will deal with that matter. The councils will have financial administrative powers. The hon. member must just wait a little seeing that the legislation will be introduced one of these days.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana should also know that we have announced several times before that we are working on a scheme of what I call modernizing and revising the influx control system in conjunction with representatives of Black leaders. I personally and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs, together with our departmental officials, are working on this. At this stage I cannot say more than that because it would not be appropriate of me to give particulars with regard to what we have in mind before we have had more and further detailed discussions with Bantu leaders. We are making arrangements for these discussions to take place in the near future.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also had something to say with regard to free enterprise and freehold ownership for Blacks in Soweto and other urban Bantu residential areas. Here again the hon. member makes the mistake he has made so many times before. I hope it is not a mistake which he makes purposely. The hon. member should really know and understand what I am trying to explain to him. The hon. member goes out from the premises of his own party’s policy of one integrated common society and then calls me to task in the light of those norms and principles.

It is not our policy.

He does so every time.

You are talking to the wrong people.

It is underlying the whole thing I am dealing with now, that of entrepreneurship and property ownership in the White areas. The hon. member has taken me to task and asked me why the Blacks did not get ownership in the White areas. But he knows what the basis of our policy is.

Do you call Soweto a White area?

Soweto is most decidedly in the White area of South Africa. I am not for one single moment going to believe that the hon. member does not know it. He knows it. [Interjections.] The hon. member talks from the premises of his party’s policy of one common integrated society and expects the Government to comply with their norms. But we cannot argue on such false premises. As a legally trained man and as someone who tries to speak logically—he very often succeeds in doing it—the hon. member should know that. [Interjections.] Although not always.

Why do you not try?

The hon. member for Durban Point has had too good a meal; he should now sit back and listen to me. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana should also remember that one has to be politically honest to appreciate this and I think the hon. member is politically honest and can therefore appreciate the fact that the Government thinks and acts in terms of our policy and in terms of our norms. In terms of our policy the Blacks are not in the White area on the same basis as the Whites who have Cape Town, Johannesburg or Pietermaritzburg, amongst others, in their homeland. We should also remember that White South Africa is not a common area for Blacks and Whites as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in the House last year. It is not a common area for Black and White in the sense of Blacks having common rights and common opportunities with the Whites in the White areas. The hon. member should also know that we do not stand for land ownership for Blacks in the Sowetos in White areas …

The hon. the Prime Minister said so.

The hon. the Prime Minister did not say that. It is not coincidence, as the hon. member suggested the other day, that Umlazi falls within a homeland area. It flows from the history of the Zulus who live there.

What about KwaMashu?

KwaMashu has been in a White area up to now, but is now being incorporated into the Bantu homeland, as happened in many other instances. The town near Rustenburg, Hlabane, was in a White area for many years, but has now been incorporated into the Tswana homeland. That happened in many other instances as well. KwaMashu is a very good example of this. It was in a White area previously, but has now been incorporated in a homeland. In the same way in which we are incorporating farming areas we can, in terms of the law, also incorporate a residential area as KwaMashu. There is nothing wrong with it. Umlazi was in a totally different position. It was a Bantu tribal area right from the beginning.

May I ask you a question?

No. We are in the Committee Stage; the hon. member can take his turn and I shall reply to him later. Nevertheless we have decided and announced that important changes would be introduced with regard to the system and the scope of trade licences and corporate business undertakings by Blacks in the Sowetos in the White parts of South Africa inside their urban residential areas. In this very session legislation will be introduced to that end, especially in regard to corporate business undertakings by Blacks, be it companies, partnerships, etc. Legislation in that respect will be introduced one of these days. This also deals with the questions which the hon. member for Jeppe put to me in this regard.

*The hon. member for Umhlatuzana again asked a question in relation to freehold ownership for Blacks in the Bantu homelands. The hon. member wants to know why they cannot obtain freehold ownership in the homelands. I and various other members, have repeatedly said here in this House that during the past few years, the Government has made it possible for hundreds of thousands of Blacks to obtain freehold ownership of land in the Bantu homelands. In all the Bantu towns in which people settle in the homelands, they can obtain freehold ownership of land. Whereas they could not obtain it previously in KwaMashu, for example, they will in future be able to obtain it there as well after KwaMashu has been included in one of the homelands. The same goes for Mdantsane and all the many other places, the names of which I need not mention now. There are dozens of Bantu towns like these and in all those towns, people can have property registered in their own name.

What about the farm Bantu?

I shall reply to that in a little while. The hon. member must just give me a chance and not become so restless. The hon. member need not be so excited and head over heels; I shall reply to all those points. Then there are the tribal areas—the areas in which the hon. member for Benoni is apparently interested—which, traditionally, are organized in a different way. In those areas, the land is generally the property of the tribe, with a few exceptions. On the whole, however, one could say that the tribal areas in South Africa belong to the tribes as such. The heads—i.e. the chiefs and their tribal councils—give rights to individuals as to the places they may farm and do as they please. The land does not belong to the individuals concerned, however. This whole matter has become interwoven into the tribal system. One could say that it forms part of their tribal religion.

Is that not socialism?

No, it is not socialism at all. A long time ago, centuries before anyone even thought of socialism, the Blacks in Africa were living in this way, and not in our country alone either. The hon. member may feel free to go and look at how things are in Malawi and other parts of Africa; he will come across the same principle there. This is the traditional approach of the Bantu. Particularly in recent times, we have designed a system in this regard so that even that right to land which the individual has—he does not have a title deed of course—may be mortgaged with a view to business he wants to transact or money he needs for development, and so on. Moreover, we have introduced a system whereby people who are completely unsuccessful as agriculturalists, may be removed from the land to another residential area within the tribal area, whilst people who will farm more successfully, may go and farm on that land in their stead. After all, the endeavour is to make the best use of agricultural land and for that reason, we have to have the best agriculturalists on it. It is not our intention, however, to fragment the tribal areas into thousands of small plots and to interfere with the tribe’s traditional ownership of the land.

What about the new land that is being purchased?

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked me a number of specific questions relating to agricultural financing and other aspects of agriculture, as well as to the acquisition of land for the Bantu. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development will reply to all those questions at a later stage. They come within his province and I have asked him to reply to them. Incidentally, I apologize for his not being in the House at the present moment. He is representing me elsewhere at the moment in negotiations that I am unable to attend. He will be here later, however.

I have already replied to some of the general points raised by the hon. member for Edenvale. Next, I want to turn to some specific aspects raised by him. I should like to deny emphatically the charge he made—he phrased it in exaggerated form—viz. that we have no channels of communication with the Bantu in the cities. His great mentor is sitting there as well. Actually, I am not quite sure who is the mentor and who the follower. One of them is Don Quixote, however, and the other is Sancho Panza. As to who is who, I cannot always tell with certainty. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout chimed in and said “yes”. The hon. members for Edenvale and Bezuidenhout really are like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza.

About whom are you talking now?

Does the hon. member not even know who Don Quixote and Sancho Panza are? I am talking about the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Edenvale. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout chimed in and said “yes”. He, too, said we had no channels of communication. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not know what he is talking about. [Interjections.] Who said “yes”? Did the hon. member not say “yes”?

No. I did not say a word.

Well, if he did not say “yes”, I withdraw my words about him but he is still either Sancho Panza or Don Quixote. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale that I deny that there are no channels of communication between us and the urban Bantu. There are complete channels in the case of both my departments, in other words, in the case of school boards, with the Department of Education, and, on the other hand, as far as the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is concerned, with the commissioners of urban areas and at the level of the Administration Boards. These are more effective, more intensive channels than ever existed before the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. Channels also exist, of course, with me as Minister and with the Deputy Ministers who deal with these matters. In addition, there is the modernization of the channels of communication in terms of the legislation I referred to a while ago, which replaces the old system of urban Bantu councils.

The hon. member for Edenvale also asked me a few specific questions on the report he had in his hand. It seems to me the hon. member did not have a great deal to say, so he clutched at the report. So he did in fact take notice of the report, not so?

The hon. member asked me a question about the gap between pensions. The hon. member did not say much about it. He did not say which pensions he meant. Therefore, I assume he was referring to social pensions. He is nodding his head affirmatively. I must point out to the hon. member that we do in fact administer this but that social pensions actually fall under the legislation of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and the hon. the Minister of Finance made his announcement in that regard in his Budget Speech. He indicated what improvements were to be effected. Since the Government has adopted standpoints in relation to the narrowing of gaps in many fields, it has been the practice for quite a few years, whenever pensions for Whites have been increased, and, of course, mutatis mutandis for the Indians and Coloureds as well, to give more, percentage-wise, to the Bantu in order to eliminate the gap that existed. Consequently, major improvements have already been effected for the Bantu during the past few years. If the hon. member wants more details relating to the specific amounts involved over the past few years, he may obtain them from me. I did not go and look up the figures for every year. This is the principle we apply, however, and this is what we have tried to implement every time.

The hon. member also asked what we in the department were referring to when we talked about all types of strategic schemes. Actually, when he uses those words, the Secretary is referring to two very important categories. One of these is the new budgeting system before us, namely target budgeting, a new system to which one of the hon. members also referred. It is a system all of us—I, too—still have to get used to. It is a new system that still has to become part of us just as the old system was part of us. Secondly, reference was made—and this concerns another of the hon. member’s questions as well—to scientific studies that the Bureau, known as B.E.R.B.D., the Bureau of Economic Research into Bantu Development, is doing for us, and to reports that appear in this regard. We receive very useful information on strategy and recommendations from this bureau, information that is very valuable to us as a department, the Ministry, the Deputy Ministers and the Bantu Affairs Commission. As I understand it, that is what that wording refers to.

The hon. member also asked me a question about Bantu taxation. He knows there was a committee. It was not a public commission. It was an inter-departmental committee of inquiry which naturally consulted with the various interested parties and that is why the existence of the committee was made known. My information is that the committee has completed its work. The report is still being studied at inter-departmental level and will shortly reach us for our consideration. So progress has been made with the report. At this stage, however, I cannot furnish the hon. member with any further information on it. Perhaps I shall be able to do so later.

The hon. member also asked a few questions concerning the matter of rural settlement. I want to tell the hon. member that during the past few years, a tremendous amount of rural settlement has taken place and that this has been very successful.

Perhaps I should take the trouble to give the hon. member more information in private. At many places in Natal, the Northern and Eastern Transvaal and the Eastern Cape, large rural settlement schemes have been carried out. For example, there is the very well-known place north of Pretoria and not very far from Onderstepoort, called Wallmannstal. Perhaps it will interest the hon. member to know that Wallmannstal no longer comprises the unsightly settlement of Blacks who used to live there under what were virtually squatter conditions. Those people have all been moved to decent land. There are many more similar examples. The hon. member referred to Thornhill as well. I want to remind the hon. member that Thornhill is situated in the homeland of the Ciskei and that it is the joint responsibility of my department and of the Government of the Ciskei. Perhaps the hon. member will remember—nevertheless, I want to remind him of it—that I said a month or two ago that I had appointed a special co-ordinating committee consisting of representatives of my department and of the Government of the Ciskei. It is headed by the Commissioner-General, Mr. Engelbrecht. That committee has to bring about the necessary measure of co-ordination locally and ensure that no difficulties arise due to misunderstandings or lack of co-ordination between the parties involved, including the Department of Health and others. It is intended to eliminate such difficulties. My information is that the committee is working well. I want to point out to the hon. member that recently various statements have been made by the Government of the Transkei to the effect that the situation there is completely satisfactory and that they see their way clear to dealing with the matter to the best of their ability.

Now I should like to say a few words about the contributions of quite a few other members, particularly on my side. I have already referred to the hon. member for Pietersburg. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Lydenburg on his well-founded contribution concerning the question of Bantu development. In my opinion, the hon. members opposite devoted altogether too little attention to the hon. member’s speech and that is why I want to recommend that they go and read the speech made by the hon. member for Lydenburg, because they would benefit from doing so.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark made a very positive contribution concerning the relationship with the Blacks in his constituency and concerning housing. I should like to receive similar positive contributions from the hon. members of the Opposition as well. I would praise them, too, if they made similar speeches. The hon. member for Alberton made a very useful contribution in relation to housing, as did the hon. member for Gezina who brought to our attention a very important work in relation to commuters.

Allow me to refer to the hon. member for King William’s Town as well. I want to thank him because he did at least do his best to stop the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. What would become of me and the poor Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education if that amendment were to be accepted? I know the hon. member for King William’s Town well and I must say that he disappointed me somewhat. I think the hon. member should have moved an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton to see whether we could not get our hands on the salary of the hon. member for Houghton. We need money for development in every field. Perhaps we could get hold of a little of her money by simply reversing the amendment and making it applicable to her. Nevertheless, the change in the hon. member’s approach is a fine one. Perhaps the physical transfer the hon. member has experienced in this House, is responsible for his having made such a positive contribution.

†Now I come to the hon. member for Houghton. It is amazing how the hon. member for Houghton does not mind making a fool of herself as we evidenced here again on Friday when she came with those false statements. She obviously has an obsession with reproving and moralizing wherever she can.

Take it easy.

How could the hon. member for Houghton say that I and Deputy Minister Treurnicht did nothing—I quote her own words—“to defuse the complaints” in respect of last year’s riots? The hon. the Deputy Minister already referred to that matter when he spoke on Friday. He also referred to the interviews we had with the Black leaders in June last year immediately after last year’s session. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Houghton would allow me to continue and not interrupt me I shall quote further examples. Last year, just after the session, we had discussions with Bantu leaders in the north together with heads of my department and officials of the Bantu Affairs Boards. On 1 July we met again and then I gave them my detailed reply and rulings about the medium of instruction and about the school board matters which we discussed at our first meeting with them. This language dispute, which was mostly a misunderstanding—as I said last year and repeat now—was on 1 July 1976 completely cleared up by the actions and decisions which I had taken. This has been unambiguously proved. Proved by whom?—By the statements of Bantu leaders, some of whom I am going to quote this afternoon. [Interjections.] My friend here says also Mrs. Winnie Mandela. The hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to her on Friday, but I am not going to quote her.

How many children have been killed?

I want to quote something and the hon. member must give me the opportunity to read it out to her. Mr. Chairman, you realize that I cannot, may not and, above all, should not, mention the names of the Bantu leaders whom I intend quoting. I have the names in front of me, but I am not going to mention their names, because last year already many of them asked us not to mention their names.

Are they frightened of the Security Police?

They are frightened of you. The quotations which I intend reading are all taken from newspaper cuttings of about 5 or 6 July 1976, i.e. a few days after my decision of 5 July, which was sent in the form of a letter to them. I waited a few days, so that the letter could reach them and then the department published a statement, i.e. the contents of the letter. This was followed by these reactions. I intend quoting some of them to hon. members. From Mr. T., a very important leader of the Bantu, there came the following—

You said there was no problem.

The next quotation is from a leader whom I shall call Mr. U. [Interjections.] I shall give my references. The first quotation was from The Cape Times of 6 July 1976.

*The second quotation was from Die Transvaler of 7 July. The quotation deals with what was said by Mr. U, who is involved in a Black school board, and Mr. V. who is a member of the African Teachers’ Association. They both said that the language dispute, as put to them, had been entirely resolved. I also want to mention a clergyman, let us call him the Rev. W, who said—

I may mention other statements as well. This is not what I am saying; these are not my conclusions. They come from the Blacks with whom the hon. Deputy Minister and I, as well as departmental officials have been in contact.

How many children have been shot?

Please keep quiet.

†I also want to read the words of Mr. X, a very important man, perhaps one of the most important ones in terms of the office he holds. He said he was—

This comes out of the The World of 6 July. I also want to read the words of the Rev. Y, a member of the Batswana North school board—

I also want to read the words of a very distinguished man, Prof. Z. This is a Black man, and he said—

So I can go on giving more and more examples. It is not my testimony, but the testimony of leaders of Black society. [Interjections.]

Celebrating the shooting?

Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely difficult to continue while the hon. member for Houghton, sitting in her bench, tries to speak simultaneously. The hon. member had her opportunity, and she surely can have another …

All right.

Why does she not stop that sort of rudeness?

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, even while I am rebuking her, she still shouts at me. [Interjections.]

It is old age!

Old age, yes! [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, another very laughable revelation made by this hon. member—a revelation of her ignorance—was her complaint on Friday that there was nothing in the estimates of my department providing for housing for Blacks in the White areas. As far as I am concerned, that statement revealed her blatant ignorance. After 24 years in this House, the hon. member for Houghton does not yet know that capital for financing the housing of Blacks in the urban areas of White South Africa is provided for in the estimates of the Department of Community Development to augment the funds available to that department. She does not yet know that, and still asks me for it.

*Subsequently the hon. member for Houghton moved an amendment, an amendment to which the hon. member for King William’s Town replied decisively. It is just another proof of her obsession with sensation. It was another sensational trick she played here. As far as this matter is concerned, my mind is at rest. I am quite prepared to await the ruling and the findings of the legal commission of inquiry. I know what my department has done. I know what the duties of my department were and I know how those duties were performed. I am quite prepared to await the findings.

I want to warn the hon. member for Houghton to be more careful with regard to this type of matter. She ought to be far more careful. Only last year she came out of here stark naked … [Interjections.]

Sandy Suzman! [Interjections.]

No, not in that sense. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton has already … if I may use another word, perhaps the hon. members will understand better. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton came out of here completely naked after the inquiry … [Interjections.]

That is still stark naked!

… after the inquiry by a chief magistrate with regard to the charge she laid against the Bantu Investment Corporation. We know how she came out of there naked and we also know what a fool she made of herself before that commission of inquiry, when she stood there with a handful of press cuttings; she could not even find them all in her handbag. We know that, and I wonder if the hon. member is not heading for a similar experience here. I wonder what awaits her when the report of the judicial commission of inquiry is published. [Interjections.] The trouble with the hon. member for Houghton—as we can also see now where she is sitting in her bench over there—is that as far as these things are concerned she has become completely shameless over the years. She has been completely blunted by the hatred and spite to which liberalism has driven her. It is an unfortunate fact that liberalism has become a demon in her, a demon that is destroying her.

She is a political streaker!

Unfortunately there is no one who can drive that demon out of her and now we have to witness the spectacle here. I think that might also be the reason why the hon. member is suffering so many frustrations, which she tries to get rid of in this House, frustrations which cause her to believe her true nature and to be untrue to herself and even to her own sex.

I want to conclude by reminding the House that according to a report in the Rand Daily Mail—which is surely the gospel truth—the hon. member said on a certain occasion that—

She said that she would prefer to be a small Black boy aged two years if she could choose again. From this we can come to two conclusions. In the first place she does not want to be a little girl if she can choose again; she wants to be a little boy. Can the hon. member explain to me what it is about a little boy that pleases her so much that she wants it for herself? Why does she want to be a small boy? But she added that she wanted to be a small Black boy. She does not want to be a small White boy; she wants to be a small Black. Is it because “Black is beautiful” or because White is ugly when the hon. member looks in the mirror? I think the hon. member’s remark can be attributed to one thing only That is just Black mannishness on the part of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I think this has been one of the most ineffectual and disappointing speeches we have heard from the hon. the Minister in this House. [Interjections.] However, there has been one improvement and that is that he has not been his usual arrogant self. Perhaps the hon. the Minister is losing his touch. I think that must be it. Maybe the hon. the Minister is on his way out. I think the hon. the Minister must be losing something else too. He said that the policy of the UP was complete integration in a common society. I cannot think of a better example of blatant ignorance than that statement. He also told us what he did in connection with the riots and he read a few anonymous letters—I think it was about five—showing approval of steps that he had taken. But we can get up and read dozens of letters in the Press criticizing him for the steps that he did not take; so I cannot see what the object was of reading the few letters he did. I leave it at that, except to point out that when the hon. the Minister talked about acting in terms of the Government’s policy, the trouble is that we never know from day to day what the Government’s policy is. The hon. the Minister also dealt with home ownership. Why was it necessary for him to go back to the position before 1948? The reason is simply that the Government has to keep on changing its policy when forced to do so through unpleasantness, such as riots and other threats from the Black people. Then changes are made.

In the short time available to me I want to deal with land purchases in the Transkei and the Ciskei. Firstly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister how much money has been made available this financial year for the purchase of rural land in the Transkei and the Ciskei, especially around Stutterheim and, secondly, how much money has been set aside for the purchase of urban properties in the Transkei.

Whatever we have to say about the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education we have got to give him his due and say that as far as possible he has progressed with the purchase of urban properties with the funds at his disposal.

I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development is not here, because the same cannot be said of him. He is responsible for the purchase of the rural properties, the farms. His excuse for his ineffectiveness and for not proceeding with the matter is that he cannot get valuations. Valuations happen to be done by the Department of Agriculture. It is his responsibility. He has the responsibility towards the farmers. If he cannot get the Department of Agriculture to make valuations, he must make some other arrangement or must get out. The hon. the Minister himself has overall responsibility for the actions of the department. It is also his duty to see that something is done about these valuations for the farm properties. We always hear the excuse that they cannot get the valuations. The hon. Minister must take a more active part in the matter. He has after all some influence as he is a member of the Cabinet. He must use his influence with the Department of Agriculture and the Government. It is particularly the hon. the Minister who gave special assurances to the farmers in Port St. Johns as to their future. Some of the people are so desperate that they have offered to accept Government bonds in lieu of cash provided their properties can be bought at once. However, I understand from the hon. the Minister that this is not possible because bonds do not alleviate his problems and he has only a certain amount of money available.

The question of the purchase of land in Port St. Johns is a thorny one, one which the Government would no doubt like to have behind its back. Let us look at what has happened after Port St. Johns was included in the Transkei. The local residents were most upset at the time. I am not going into the history of all the petitions and actions we took here to try to obtain assistance for them. They wanted to be compensated, but were told that they would have to await their turn and be patient until the town had been zoned for Black occupation. What happened then?

They were stunned to hear that one Henning, a non-resident speculator, had sold his property to the Bantu Trust for over R1,2 million. He did this on 9 September 1975. That was actually before the zoning was promulgated. He was given preferential treatment over all those who qualified for priority in terms of the Government’s own standards.

Of course, the Press got busy. After a lot of interviews, it came out that there was a dispute as to which Deputy Minister had actually concluded the deal. It was finally settled that it was Mr. Raubenheimer, who was then the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs, although he has forgotten all about the transactions. First the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that it was Deputy Minister Janson who dealt with it, and then finally he said he had forgotten who had dealt with it.

You are talking rubbish.

The hon. the Minister said that he took responsibility, because he had been informed at all stages of what was happening. Last year there was a lengthy debate under his Vote in this House. We questioned him closely, but could get no definite reply from him. We questioned him because there were certain disturbing features. The price that was paid for the land appeared to be extraordinarily high. Two strange valuators had been employed. One was from King William’s Town and the other, a Mr. Claassen, from Pretoria. Preferential treatment had been given to a nonresident speculator who was not unknown in the insolvency courts. The trust had bought the land before it had been zoned for Black purchase. Then a huge sum of R2 million was paid out to Henning and another man, Schoeman, when the Government at that time was withdrawing offers it had made to farmers in the Ciskei because it allegedly had no money to meet the contracts. The hon. the Minister was closely questioned in the House, but we could get nothing from him. He would not tell us what the valuation was. All we heard was that the purchase price was favourable to the trust and that the valuations were properly scrutinized. He also said that the purchase price did not exceed the valuation. What was the valuation? We heard it the other day when the hon. the Minister stated in this House. The valuation was R1 212 967,36. The Purchase Price was R1 212 967,00. Mr. Henning gave a cash discount of 36 cent, and we had a bargain!

The public, except in Port St. Johns, would probably have forgotten about it had it not been for the sensational report in the newspapers on 27 February this year. This report alleged that an official who handled the matter, had been bribed for the princely sum of R150 000. The informant said that he had to undertake to get Mr. Raubenheimer to expedite the matter. There is a strong suspicion that the official was the valuator, Mr. Claassens, who, subsequent to the valuation, was involved in a court case with Henning for a sum of R150 000—the same sum. He has since resigned from the department. There is also a definite statement by the informant of the paper, Prof. Chris Jansen, that Mr. Raubenheimer had not been bribed and nobody suggested that he did act dishonourably in any way.

All we say is that he was most inept. Obviously he could not have used his influence to get the sale expedited, because the hon. the Minister, when he was questioned at the time, about priority, said he supposed their case was looked into by the department and that it was found they qualified for priority treatment. He only supposed it; he therefore did not remember. There is no doubt that they did get priority. The hon. the Minister himself admitted it when he discussed the matter in the House. The reason which he gave was—to say the least of it—most unsatisfactory. He said he had to stop the township from being proclaimed—I say there was no prospect of that being done—and that Henning and Schoeman were being sued for the refund of the purchase prices paid by dozens of plotholders. If Henning could afford to give a bribe of R15 000 off his selling price, it is an indication that the price was exorbitant. The general consensus is that the hon. the Minister was taken for a ride.

If this is an example of how he spends the public’s money, it is clear that he is not competent to handle deals of this magnitude. This is also a very good reason why we should support the motion for a reduction in his salary. I am surprised that the hon. members for King William’s Town and Albany are not supporting the motion, when one bears in mind what happened to the people in their constituencies and what disappointment they have had through the actions of the hon. the Minister.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has also been callous in this treatment of innocent purchasers of plots from Henning. I have mentioned the case of the widow who bought a plot for R9 500. She paid R950 in cash and quarterly payments of R285. She paid more than R3 000 in all and she has not received a cent from Henning, who has gone insolvent again. The hon. the Minister said that one of the reasons why he bought from Henning was to enable him to repay the people who were going to lose their plots. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the hon. member took last year’s notebook, “clicked” on to the same story he “clicked” on to last year, a story to which he has already received a reply. [Interjections.] It amazes me that the hon. member can be so ignorant and that he wants to call the system of land valuations into question. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to talk to somebody in the Verwoerd Building he would have discovered how easy it is to obtain the information from the department or even from the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. member ought to know that only a certain amount of money is voted for the purchase of land every year. In addition the hon. member ought to know that we cannot make valuations now of land which is going to be purchased in five years’ time. At that time the price of land will have to be adjusted, either up or down. So I want to leave the matter at that, except to touch on a final aspect, an aspect which the hon. the Minister has already clarified but which the UP simply does not want to understand. It is their policy—and if it is not, they do not believe themselves—to see South Africa as one big country in which Blacks and Whites co-exist. The hon. member for Pinetown will be able to confirm the fact that he sends people to take out books at the library for Whites in my constituency while they cannot get the books there as no facilities have been created for them there. I cannot understand why they come to the Whites’ library while the Provincial Administration has created similar facilities in their own homeland, 16 miles away. If they demand rights in our White homeland I cannot understand why they do not demand those rights in their own homelands, especially in view of the fact that it is the policy of the UP that only one large mass of people live in the country and that no distinction is made between White and some Blacks.

One thing that annoys me is when guests start moving portraits and rearranging chairs in my home. I shall object very strongly to that. The UP and the Progs are always acting on behalf of the non-Whites in our White homelands, while they do not have any mandate to do so in any event, because the non-Whites would not elect such rotten representatives if they could vote. They would at least elect people who understand the essential being of the Black man and know what it is all about. [Interjections.] I want to point out that the leader of the UP of the province of Natal made an announcement last Friday to the effect that discussions would be held between the Durban City Council and the Indian people, which is called a Turnhalle in Durban by today’s newspaper.

Tell us about the Black lawyer in Vryheid!

I shall reply to the hon. member on that issue too. They are the ones who incite those people to antagonize us. The hon. member quoted the announcement concerning the Turnhalle in Durban, but I still find it strange as the population of Durban does not consist of Indians and Whites only. Indeed there are also 150 000 Coloureds in Durban and more than one million Bantu.

Where are they settled?

In the Greater Durban area. Why are they not invited too?

Do they live in the Greater Durban area?

Yes.

Where?

The Umlazi area.

But according to your policy they are in the homelands.

But the provincial council is not authorized to deal with Bantu affairs. [Interjections.]

Order!

They hold up this announcement now, but they forget that a member of the executive committee of which they are so proud, promised the Nationalists of Natal at one stage that a member of the NP would be appointed to the Natal Parks Board. What was the result of this? Mr. Wood resigned as chairman of the Parks Board. What is more: He even had to resign his position as MPC.

And today?

No, wait a moment.

I want to know what the position is today.

The hon. member must wait for me to finish speaking. The NP asked for one Nationalist to be appointed to the board, but it did not take place at that stage.

Order! The hon. member must not elaborate too much on that matter, because the Committee is not dealing with the Natal Parks Board at the moment.

I want to state my standpoint very clearly. According to the policy of my party, South Africa is a multinational country in which the Bantu will eventually have their own homelands according to ethnic groupings, and we as Whites will have our homeland. We shall be able to pass whatever laws we wish in our homeland. Those who come to our part of the country in order to work here, must accept our laws and if they do not accept our laws, they need not come here, whether they are White or Black or whether they come from Portugal, Greece or Zululand. Those people must simply realize that if they come to the White part of South Africa, they will have to do here as the Whites want them to do.

The big objection I have, is that a general statement is made in the Press today which is simply swallowed whole by everyone and by the other side of this House in particular. I am referring to the statement that there is unemployment. About Black unemployment, however, they must not talk to me. In the farming industry the wages of regular farm workers rose by 130,7% from 1969 to 1975 while the wages of day labourers increased by 213,56% over the same period. In spite of those wage increases we do not have one Bantu labourer for every four Bantu labourers we want on the farms.

What do you pay your farm labourers?

The hon. member still has to grow up, he will hear later on and in the meantime he must be quiet. However, the matter goes much further than the mere question of Bantu wages. In spite of the fact that the wages have been increased, the Bantu in my part of the world, as hon. members of Natal will know, are not prepared to do piece-work on the basis of which their productivity may be gauged in order to relate their productivity to a salary. They are only prepared to work by day, by week or by month, and preferably without supervision.

The increased wages have resulted in a large number of domestic servants simply having priced themselves out of the market, because it is impossible for a family with an income of R600 per month to pay 20% or 30% of that income to a domestic servant. The result is that the domestic servants are hanging around on the streets; there is simply no work for them. They have priced themselves out of the market and the hon. members with their Press are the cause of this.

What Press?

The English-language Press. [Interjections.] In 1973 a report was published in a newspaper concerning Bantu who had to work for nothing. The heading of the report was “Men who work for nothing”. I am referring in particular to the Press which supports the hon. members of the PRP. Since those days the Bantu worker in Natal has started pricing himself out of the market. He has priced himself out of the sugar industry, the wattle industry and the domestic servant industry. The result is that at the moment a whole lot of foreign Bantu have taken over all three of these industries, although they have taken over the domestic servant industry to a lesser extent. I am not speaking of foreign Bantu from our country. I am speaking of foreign Bantu from beyond our borders. Those Bantu have taken over. [Interjections.] That hon. member may laugh. “Botterbul” knows this too.

Order! The hon. member must refer to hon. members by their constituencies.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reference to the hon. “Botterbul”. I refer to him now as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. However, hon. members on the other side know as well as I do that a large number of Portuguese Bantu and Swazi Bantu are working on the sugar plantations and that they are also working in the timber industry. What actually bothers me, is the fact that many of those people enter the country with false permits, and only a few of them with the correct permits. The vast majority, however, have no permits. However, the people who employ them take the law into their own hands and lay themselves open to prosecution. I want to address a request to the public today. I want to warn them that they are playing with fire because the Bantu who are employed without permits may be terrorists, murderers or anything. Therefore, no person in South Africa ought to have any doubt that those who employ those people without legal permits or the necessary documents, are playing with fire because they are endangering the lives of our people, especially those of the women and children who remain at home when the men go out to work. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to react to the hon. member for Vryheid.

I do not expect you to react to me. I expect much better.

I hope he will excuse me. I cannot react to him because his arguments on economic matters are, to put it mildly, not worth wasting my limited time on.

I want to turn my attention to the hon. the Minister. I have heard many statements in this House, but to say that Soweto is a White area of South Africa is coming very close to taking the prize, a prize of a somewhat dubious nature. I think the hon. the Minister lives where Lewis Carroll put Alice, not Wonderland but rather Cloud-Cuckoo-land. In connection with the question he would not let me put to him, I should like to quote the hon. the Prime Minister in his statement on socio-economic policy to Assocom—

Those concessions are certainly to be welcomed. They are limited—the hon. the Prime Minister admitted as much—as indeed were the undertakings given by the hon. the Deputy Minister to the delegation from NAFCOC in August of last year. However, both of these sets of concessions must be seen against the present economic background of our country, the overriding problem, which needs to be solved, being Soweto. Taking Soweto as a typical example of the Black urban areas, one sees it in a very direct sense as the eye of the storm in so far as this country is concerned. The eye of that storm has already erupted once into a whirlwind and has created devastation that has not been restricted to Soweto, but the consequences of which have spread out far beyond Soweto’s boundaries. If that whirlwind is not to erupt again, action must be taken by the Government, the hon. the Minister and his three deputies, and it must be taken on a massive scale. What is more that action must be taken by tomorrow, if not immediately.

Sir, let me remind the hon. the Minister and his three deputies of what the bare facts of Soweto are. Approximately one million people live in Soweto. The hon. the Minister told us that the total expenditure budgeted for this year is R58,l million as against the total income of R49 million. There is an official housing backlog there of 17 000 families, and this year the hon. the Minister and the West Rand Bantu Administration Board have allowed R750 000 for housing—that is all! What is more, the hon. the Minister has given us the following figures which reflect the number of houses that have been constructed in Soweto in the last three years: 1 530, 545 and 162. The budget this year provides for the construction of a further 834 houses. Furthermore, only 20 000 out of 100 000 houses have electricity. There is of course now the scheme to provide electricity throughout Soweto. Let the Government by all means take credit for that, although the money to provide the electricity has been put up by private enterprise in the first instance. Then I must mention the treatment every resident of Soweto has to endure and experience every day of his working life. There is the necessity for forms, the queues and the frustration. On top of all this, transport charges have now been increased, food prices are likely to increase and there is steadily rising unemployment. Yet the West Rand Bantu Administration Board chooses this moment to increase the site rents by 80%.

Is that real something one can live safely with? Or is it something which actually makes the hon. members on the other side sleep uneasily at night? I have had to remind the House, and more particularly the hon. the Minister and his three deputies, of the bones of Soweto. I have made this reminder in the hope that it will serve a useful and instructive purpose. It is however no substitute for experience, and by experience I mean the experience gained by regular visits to Soweto. Those four men, the hon. the Minister and his three Deputy Ministers, must visit Soweto regularly to see for themselves, to hear for themselves from the residents and to talk with them. The fact that they have not done so, is actually beyond belief. They must be very frightened men to avoid contact with the realities for which they are responsible. Make no mistake: It is the decisions of those four men which rule the lives of the residents of Soweto.

I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister or one of his deputies will reply to the hon. member for Houghton and will tell us how many times each one of them has been to Soweto since 16 June last year. We cannot afford to have in charge of Soweto men who refuse to see the reality or to speak to people and hear the reality. Such ignorance we simply cannot afford to live with any longer. I hope one of those four gentlemen will stand up and tell us how many times each one of them has been to Soweto since 16 June last year and how many times they plan to go there in the next three months.

As I have said, there are about one million people who live in Soweto and, whatever the hon. members on the other side of the House may say, it is there that the question of peaceful co-existence for all the people of this country is going to be decided. Where it is going to be resolved is in urban areas like Soweto.

You do not know what you are talking about.

It is dangerously late, and battles have already been lost. Let us make sure that we do not lose the war. And let us make no mistake about it; it is not the Black people alone who are going to lose the war, it is not the White people alone who are going to lose the war, it is every South African who is going to lose that particular war if the Black residents of Soweto discard the idea, the mere possibility of peaceful co-existense with White South Africans, and they chuck that idea on the scrap-heap. If that happens, all of us are going to pay a very severe price.

The hon. the Prime Minister has said we must pursue objectives because they are worthy objectives in themselves, rather than to impress external parties. We in these benches have absolutely no quibble with that. I presume that every one in the Government benches will go along with the hon. the Prime Minister. Therefore, let us ask them this question: Is the improvement in the quality of life in Soweto a worthy objective in itself or not? We do not want to hear any prevarication; we just want to hear “yes” or “no”. The hon. the Prime Minister also stated, and I quote again from his statement to Assocom—

In the short time left to me let me propose to the hon. the Prime Minister that he and his Government should accept the following: freehold tenure and freehold ownership of land; vastly improved educational facilities, both in quality and in scale; the abolition of the concept that the West Rand Bantu Administration Board and such bodies should be self-financing entities; the abolition of every restriction that prevents Black South Africans from competing with White South Africans on a fair basis in business. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one really has to contain oneself when one follows that hon. member in debate. I want to tell that hon. member that he had to come to this country to see a Black person for the first time in his life. Now, with that paucity of experience he has had, because he was born elsewhere—and I do not blame him for that—he talks as though he was all-knowing about the problems of South Africa. He makes exactly the same mistake as the hon. member for Houghton does.

When were you last in Soweto?

He asks when I was last in Soweto. The last time I was in Soweto was last year.

When?

When?

The date does not matter. But I want to tell those two hon. members that if they are suffering from Soweto fever they must not blame us if we do not want to contract the same fever. There are Black people all over the surface of South Africa. I have had a survey made and I have information in regard to every Black township in White South Africa. There are more than 300 of these where Black people live. Let us acknowledge that Soweto, with its concentration of this mass of people, is very important. But in this country Soweto alone is not the yardstick for all norms and it is not the only yardstick for all the problems of South Africa. When the hon. member asks me how often I have been to Soweto, I want to tell him that personally I have been to Soweto once, and before that I was in Soweto more times than he could hope to go there. In other words, geographically I know the area. I also have my agents, inter alia, the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board and Black leaders. I shall have to consult my diaries, but I have had discussions dozens of times with Black leaders and with the Bantu Affairs Administration Board. But apart from that, I have tried to take a count of how many other Bantu townships there are. The hon. member’s difficulty is that he does not understand when one speaks Afrikaans. [Interjections.] What is more, he does not understand that either. In the two short years I have been in office I have tried to count how many Bantu townships I have visited in the rest of South Africa, and I find there are more than 60 of them.

Apart from discussions I have had regarding Bantu townships in the areas of jurisdiction of Bantu Administration Boards, this is more than the number of times those two persons together have visited Soweto. I should like to give an example. In respect of problems in other areas—and one tries to obtain information about other areas—in the space of two days, if I might give a personal example, in the Northern Cape alone I have travelled more than 1 500 km to see those Bantu townships. I really only have six months in which to do this, because for six months I have to stay here. Then it is that sort of person who talks as if it is going to make a tremendous impression on the Black public outside. They say that they are the people who are continually concerned with Soweto and that we have no interest in Soweto. That is the sort of rubbish one gets. It impresses nobody.

Now I want to refer to the question of commerce. I shall return later to the question of housing. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also referred to the question of commerce. The constant plea that the Black people should participate in the system of free enterprise in South Africa is quite correct. But this does not only apply to dealers. It does not only apply to those engaged in trade but to the whole community. What has been done in the meantime? There was a scientific investigation by the National African Chamber of Commerce. That investigation identified certain bottlenecks regarding the position of the Black man in commerce. One of the shortcomings that came to light was that the dealers had very little practical training and did not have the necessary expertise and skill to carry on their businesses, a further problem was that many of these people were in the older age group, and basically had not attained a very high standard at school. So it is difficult even to provide training in modern commercial practices for those people. That is the one problem. They lack skill. In addition there is a total lack of finance. I do not want to refer to the various methods of financing and do not wish to elaborate on these now because my time is very limited. It was found further that there are certain laws and regulations which hamstring these people in the conduct of their businesses.

The question is asked how we can help those people. I want to refer the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, inter alia, to the following illustrations. They have absolutely nothing to do with the riots. The majority of the examples I want to mention refer to occurrences that had already taken place in May last year. Where previously there was a regulation which permitted only a one man business, partnerships may now be established, partnerships in which even Bantu women can participate. That is something that was not allowed previously. I am just dealing with this briefly. In the second place a Black man was only allowed to carry on one business undertaking in a township. That regulation has been changed. Now a Bantu can carry on as many business undertakings as he can manage on his premises. Previously Bantu dealers were limited to stocking only the essential domestic necessities. The extent to which business undertakings in which Black people may be active has now been expanded to 26 different sorts of undertakings.

Previously a Black dealer was only allowed to use one trading stand. Now the department requires ministerial consent to be granted only for the use of more than one stand by a dealer. There are good reasons why this should be so. One of them is to prevent possible monopolistic circumstances. Previously Bantu dealers were only allowed to conduct their businesses in leased buildings. In terms of the new regulations a dealer may erect his own building, or purchase a building or buildings from the Bantu Administration Board. Of course, this excludes the land.

Another change which has come about is that relating to the renewal of trading licences. The same conditions as those for Whites are at present applicable to the renewal of trading licences for Bantu. In addition, consideration is being given to the further amendment of the regulations. In any event, proceedings are now being conducted as if the regulations had already been changed. It is only the wording of the regulations that has to be altered. That amendment refers to the following. If a Bantu dealer previously had a business undertaking in a White area, he could not also have a business in a homeland. Now a Bantu dealer may conduct a business in a homeland as well as in a White area. All that will apply in future are the health regulations of the local authority concerned. Previously it was the function of the superintendent to decide if things were not right. In future only the health regulations of the local authority concerned will apply.

There are the 26 branches of commerce to which I have just referred and the investigation is continuing in an attempt to decide if it is not possible to allow 59 different branches of commerce.

Further, the department is also examining certain legislation administered by the Department of Labour. Industrial legislation is therefore also involved. They are making inquiries to decide where it will be necessary to amend the legislation.

In other words, the hon. member is making a fuss about what has not been done; he lays everything at the door of the Government and says we must start on a massive scale with a lot of projects as if nothing had been done in the past. The hon. member referred to the 20 000 houses in Soweto which have electricity and the large scheme which is now under way. May I ask the hon. member in all fairness whose responsibility the supply of electricity was in the past? It was not the Administration Board which now has to work itself to death. It was another organization. But now the Administration Board is blamed for everything. I say therefore that the hon. member does not have a sound knowledge of these things. He must not blame us if we do not take his remarks seriously.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also spoke on the subject of making trading facilities freely available. That is a dangerous statement to make, because if we make trading facilities freely available, it will mean that the Whites and Asians will also be able to obtain trading rights in Bantu townships.

We never said that.

Then the hon. members should qualify their statements. That is what I take them to mean. Hon. members should be more explicit. The danger is that if the greater skill and the greater capital strength of the Whites and Asians is permitted there, the poor Black dealer will disappear. They are people who have provided good service to the Black public over many years and we should like them to stay.

I should like to refer to various factors with which we often have to deal. The requirement that the citizenship certificates had to be produced was repealed in August last year. In other words, since August 1976 this requirement has not been applicable, and it is no longer a subject for discussion. But what do we find? We find a respectable organization like Assocom in a letter dated 9 February this year referring to the fact that the citizenship certificates are a factor to be taken into account in determining trading facilities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I might say that the arrangement was that somebody else should have spoken at that stage. [Interjections.] I really cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister became so het-up over the quite reasonable questions and views put by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. [Interjections.] Hopefully I shall return to that later.

I want to reply to what I regard as the unpleasant reaction we had from the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister quoted from letters. But I should like to read to the hon. the Minister from a letter to a newspaper dealing with a speech made a few days ago by the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana when he addressed the regional conference of Assocom. It reads—

According to the report the Chief Minister’s words were as follows—

The reports reads further—

We can talk about channels of communication. It is not I who say this but Chief Minister Mangope.

The hon. the Minister said I had nothing to say. That is an injustice which the hon. the Minister does me. I did not have the time to deviate from my questions. No satisfactory reply has been given to those questions. Not only does this report show signs of total superficiality but nowhere in it does it show that the department is dealing with people. The report is an accumulation of facts and figures as if people were pieces on a chessboard which the hon. the Minister had to deal with. Because this Minister—I am not referring to the Deputy Minister because I know he has only held this post for two years—has occupied this portfolio for many years, one would expect him to be in a position to know what is happening in Soweto and that he would at least have let his voice be heard and have taken some action. The least I expected was that the hon. the Minister, in the light of what happened here in the Peninsula in December, would have given some sign that he was at least aware of the harm that was done here and the problems which arose here. Simply to leave the matter in the hands of the Police is a dereliction of the hon. Minister’s duty as Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Nowhere in this report is there any sign that the department is working with people.

When we examine the provision of sporting and recreational facilities, I want to ask if there is a blueprint or plan to show in which direction this department will move in this specific field with the Black people. When we consider housing, I want to associate myself with that the hon. member for Johannesburg North said here and the facts he furnished. In the eight year period from 1960 to 1968, 136 841 houses were built in the urban areas of South Africa. In the eight year period from 1968 to 1976—I am quoting from the annual report—only 61 568 houses were built. This means that in the past eight years 75 000 fewer houses were built for Blacks in the urban areas than in the previous eight years. That is the record of the hon. the Minister.

There is no evidence in this report that the hon. the Minister has any interest in dealing with the real problems of human relations. He could at least have taken a leaf out of the book of the hon. Minister of Coloured Relations in establishing liaison committees between Whites and Coloureds. But nowhere do we find that the hon. the Minister is interested in genuinely improving human relations as such. I await his report on the position of the Bantu on farms. I should have liked to see something in this report regarding the alleviation of social states of emergency in our urban areas. One finds nothing in this regard in the report.

Another problem I have in this connection is in respect of the attitude which emerges as a result of the reasons which gave rise to the resignation of Mrs. Mellet as a social worker with the West Rand Bantu Administration Board. These reports are lying somewhere gathering dust and nobody is prepared to stick his neck out and admit that the problem of fatherless families exists in Johannesburg. The lady says, inter alia—

She goes on to say that she gave up her work because the situation had got completely out of hand. That is the problem with the department and the Minister.

I wait in vain for some sign from the hon. the Minister that he will seriously consider abolishing some of the technical offences the Bantu fall foul of. The report is a year old, and what does the hon. the Minister say? He says a report has been drawn up but the report is being circulated. We are told this while the introduction to this report states that a report has been received. Meanwhile the report of the Viljoen Commission has been received. Meanwhile the report of the Viljoen Commission has been published in which references is made to the fact that it is absolutely urgently necessary that there should be a discriminalization of the technical offences, but up to now we have still not had a reply from the hon. the Minister in this connection. If it was not possible to include this in the report, it was the duty of the hon. the Minister to say how he was going to implement the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission.

The hon. the Minister must not say that he has contact with the Black people through his officials. Although there are zealous officials, it is unfortunately true that since urban administration has been transferred to the Bantu Administration Boards the Bantu in the urban areas do not regard board officials as their mouthpieces. It is not I who make this contention; it is what they themselves say. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the comments of the hon. member for Edenvale on what Chief Minister Mangope said, I want to tell the hon. member that our policy and the policy of the hon. the Minister is that we never attack Bantu leaders in public. On all the occasions we have to talk to them, we do so man to man. I do not want to do so here today either.

Is Buthelezi the exception?

I have never yet expressed an opinion of any of the Bantu leaders. The hon. member is therefore accosting the wrong man when he addresses that interjection to me. It is probably difficult to indicate in a report just how people are treated besides providing the particulars and statistics. After all, the spirit in which we operate can be assessed from the decisions we make. When on occasion I work with administration boards and their officials, I stress two matters. I point out to them that they are not simply an administrative machine but that they are also working with people. I usually also ask them what gives them the right to feel superior to other people. Only two factors give one the right to a feeling of superiority over others and these are one’s moral and intellectual superiority. That is the spirit in which people are to be treated. In other words, it can also be ascertained from our public decisions and from the way we act whether we treat people well. We treat people well and in many instances we actually bend over backwards so as to be able to treat people in this way.

The housing question has already been raised by various hon. members. I must admit that a great need exists in this regard. I do not want to quote figures, because I am busy with a final survey and trust that I will be able to use the figures one day. However, I should like to mention for the sake of the record what has been done in this regard during the past years. From 1920 to 1947, a period of 28 years, 41 107 houses were built at a cost of R20 553 300. From 1948 to March 1976, a period of 29 years, 327 000 houses—I am quoting the approximate number—were built at a cost of R201 million. To this amount another R150 million from service levies must be added, which was also used in the White area. To this must also be added the R354 million spent on approximately 130 000 houses in the homeland towns from the financial year 1961-’62 to the financial year 1975-’76. When one adds these amounts one will see that the department has also done its duty in regard to expenditure on housing.

The hon. member for Jeppe also complained and said he was disappointed at the amount that had for instance been made available for housing by the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board. It is true that the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards have limited revenue resources. Many of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards use their profits from Bantu beer to subsidize the rental of houses. The West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board referred to by the hon. member subsidized 29% of the rentals during 1974-’75. During 1975-’76 they subsidized 20% of the rental amount. These again are round figures. Even if the increased house rentals referred to by the hon. member for Johannesburg North were to be introduced, the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board would still subsidize house rentals in its area by 23,5%. In other words, this is the contribution of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. If their revenue generating resources are destroyed, as in the case of the beer halls and distribution points of the West Rand Bantu Affairs Board, they will have less revenue and will find it all the more difficult to subsidize. In future it will become all the more essential for us to take the real cost of services into consideration to improve the content and quality of life within the Bantu townships about which we hear so often. It is interesting to note that during the days when the resettlement Board was busy with Deipkloof and Meadowlands, it built approximately 26 000 houses. It obtained a loan from the National Housing Commission for the first 8 000 houses and thereafter built all the houses from its own funds because the rentals of those houses were very realistic. We will have to resort to that position progressively more and more.

I should like to mention another example to hon. members. I had the figures checked this morning. The East Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board is subsidizing the rentals of old and existing houses up to 58%. Up to 80% of the rentals of the old and new houses together in certain areas is being subsidized. In other words, even if amounts are voted for the establishment of new housing the subsidy burden is an immense burden upon the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. I should like to mention as an example here the removal of the old Brakpan Bantu residential area. The rental of the houses now being built will amount to R40,93. They are however, subsidized in an amount of R33,38 per month. In other words, the Bantu only pays R7,55 for his house. The total amount paid by that Bantu Affairs Administration Board as a subsidy on that group of 2 582 houses only, amount to R1 033 000. If we had had that amount available to provide additional housing the picture would have been completely different.

Let us consider the present state of affairs. We have in fact stated that, because this is too heavy a burden upon the State, we must adopt new methods and consequently stress the fact that the employer and the individual who requires housing, will have to bear a heavier burden. Again using the West Rand Administration Board as an example, we had 14 000 inquiries there because of this new scheme of home ownership and the fact that employers can make a particular contribution. The interest of many of the people is, however, dwindling, but in the area of that Administration Board, we have approximately 10 000 cases that have to be handled and processed and it is anticipated that 9 000 out of the 10 000 cases will be successful; in other words, that there will be an additional 9 000 houses built in Soweto this year. This applies to the present time, regardless of inquiries that may still eventuate. In other words, the other ways in which we are trying to alleviate the position are also having results. There is an attempt now to improve the quality of life within the Bantu townships, inter alia, through this Urban Foundation. I welcome that institution. I welcome the idea of working together to attain something in that field. But I want to add this. The Urban Foundation, the department or anybody else, will not be able to bring quality into the lives of a community if that community does not do its share as well. There is one thing I should like to see, and I have made many appeals in this regard. Even if people live in simple surroundings those circumstances must be clean and tidy. In this connection the local inhabitant can do a lot himself. I can show hon. members large and small townships in South Africa where there is a sort of “matchbox” house. But when one looks at the orderliness, the neatness and the general appearance of those areas, one is immediately impressed and realizes that those people already have more quality in their lives than other people who simply let things take their course. In other words, the community itself can make a worthwhile contribution by interesting itself in the improvement of the standard of living within its own residential area.

I should have liked to say something on the question of labour, but unfortunately my time has expired. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply immediately to the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, and hasten to say that it is beyond me how an hon. member like the hon. member for Johannesburg North can stand up here today and criticize the Government. As we all know, the hon. member for Johannesburg North is an executive officer of Anglo-American. He criticizes this Government’s Bantu policy. I want to show why he does this. I have never heard those hon. members, including the hon. member for Johannesburg North, thank the Whites of South Africa, the people who dig out their gold, in any way. Secondly, I have never heard the hon. member for Johannesburg North or the other hon. members of the PRP thank the Government for the peace and calm which prevails in South Africa.

Welkom mines 33% of the free world’s gold and 18% of South Africa’s gold, and peace and calm prevails there. One would expect that hon. member to thank the Government for the peace and calm and good order which prevails particularly in that part of South Africa.

Let me come for a moment to the hon. member for Houghton who is now back in the House. She made much of the fact that the hon. the Minister and the hon. Deputy Ministers apparently did not visit Soweto. She tried to make out that she, together with her Progrefs, are the only people who at all times have the interests of the Bantu in South Africa at heart. If it gives the hon. member for Houghton so much pleasure to think that she is the only person in this House who campaigns for the Bantu in South Africa, let her have that pleasure. In all affection I must tell her that when I look at her I do not begrudge her this pleasure—perhaps there are other little pleasures she can no longer enjoy.

I want to hasten on to the Bantu Administration Boards of the Free State. I wish to take up the cudgels for those administration boards and for the Welkom administration board. In the short period of six years since 1971 when the Bantu Affairs Administration Act was passed by this House, Bantu Administration Boards have performed a gigantic task under the most difficult circumstances. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to the wonderful work that has been done in the Vaal Triangle. In this respect I can only congratulate him personally and the relevant Bantu Administration Board and its officials who have performed such outstanding work there. I am aware of the fact that the Bantu Administration Boards suffered some growing pains. Any Act placed on the Statute Book brings growing pains in its wake. However, with great pride and gratitude I want to stress today that as far as my knowledge goes, those growing pains are a thing of the past. That applies particularly to the area of which I have an intimate knowledge. I think that the Bantu Administration Board of the central Free State region can fruitfully forge ahead on the solid foundations which have been laid in the past.

Let me return for a moment to that region which, of course, I know well. I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Bantu Administration Board of that region and the officials there, Bantu as well as Whites, for the fact that while there were riots in certain parts of the country, there was absolutely no unrest in this large region—I shall show just now how large this region actually is. I think this was attributable to a few things. Firstly it was because the hon. member for Houghton is not very welcome in the Free State. If she had been there it might have been another story. The fact that there was no unrest I attribute to the fact that the Bantu Administration Board in the central Free State—and I think this applies to all the other Bantu Administration Boards throughout South Africa—believes in one basic principle, viz. to foster healthy human relations at all times. The hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to the fact that contact is being maintained with those people all the time by way of dialogue.

Not very successfully.

The hon. member must keep quiet for a moment. The name of the Bantu township at Welkom is Thabong. This means “peace”. As the name implies, peace, calm and good order prevail throughout that whole region. Let me just briefly indicate how big this area is. The relevant area of jurisdiction embraces 23 White towns, 25 Bantu townships and 6 360 farms. Of the Bantu population in that area of jurisdiction there are 193 700 in the Bantu townships, 173 800 on the farms and 100 000 on the mines—in round figures therefore there are 500 000 Bantu in that area. The appropriation amounts to R20 million with a capital budget of approximately R7 million. Sir, in that area, which is larger than the area of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, an attitude of goodwill and good human relations has existed over the years. Why is that so? It is because that Bantu Administration Board, like any other Bantu Administration Board in South Africa, has one aim, viz. to maintain a happy, sincere contact with the Bantu at all times.

Let me also say this to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member and the few PRP members think they are the only people in South Africa who have contact with the Bantu in South Africa. In my case, and I think too in the case of each of my hon. colleagues on this side, we have contact from time to time, in fact continuous contact, with the Bantu in our own areas. Each of us in our own areas attends the meetings of the Bantu advisory committees when they deal with the interests of the Bantu in our areas. From time to time I have had discussions with the Bantu who come to talk to me, because they trust me. They come to me with their problems. As a result of this we have a very good relationship with the Bantu in South Africa.

I am aware of the fact that there have been certain shortcomings in the matter of sporting and recreational facilities in my area, but I also want to tell the hon. members of the PRP what has happened recently, since the Bantu Administration Board has been established there. Five sports stadiums have already been built in that area, three community halls—a further three are under construction—and in respect of educational facilities 180 classrooms have been built at a cost of approximately R1 million.

I want to conclude by saying that I accept that each of the Bantu Administration Boards in South Africa faces many challenges. We live in difficult times. We live in times which make great demands of us, financially and otherwise, but I believe that by means of what has been achieved by the Bantu Administration Boards and their officials, with this great principle in mind at all times, viz. to provide the best services for the Black people in South Africa, we shall solve fruitfully all the great problems with which we are faced in the years ahead. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to say very little about the speech of the hon. member for Welkom. He spoke about the contact that is being maintained between the Bantu and the various departments. I can only say that this is contact with very little result. Apart from that, his speech was typical of most of the speeches we have heard from the other side. They have very little content and no real arguments are advanced. But this is their normal approach. We in these benches are accustomed to giving warnings concerning areas of potential friction to the hon. Minister and his colleagues, but these are usually disregarded, with very serious consequences. For instance, there were the warnings we put forward on Soweto, warnings which were somewhat scornfully rejected.

This afternoon I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister, a matter about which he was warned, but to which he again paid no attention, again with very serious results. In 1975 the hon. the Minister introduced the Transkei Amendment Bill into this House, a Bill providing for the excision of the Glen Grey and Herschel districts from the Ciskei and for their inclusion in the Transkei. This was an extraordinary thing to do in view of the fact that a referendum which was held amongst the inhabitants of these areas in 1971 indicated that the overwhelming majority of the people of these areas did not want to be included in the Transkei and did not want to be excised from the Ciskei. The hon. member for Houghton, in expressing opposition to the Bill on behalf of the members in these benches, reminded the hon. the Minister of very clearly of the attitudes expressed in the referendum and quoted figures. The hon. the Minister chose to disregard the warnings of the hon. member for Houghton and went ahead. He poured cold water over the referendum results and proceeded with the Bill, uttering piously (Hansard, Vol. 57, col. 7322)—

She obviously did know better, and the results are there for all to see. Tens of thousands of refugees have fled from the Glen Grey and Herschel areas, and the results are to be seen in the refugee camp at Thornhill. The hon. the Minister, having totally disregarded the referendum results, is now saddled with a situation where anything up to 60 000 refugees—the exact number is unclear—living not only in Thornhill but in other adjacent areas, have to be housed, have to be provided with the amenities that any community requires. I have been to Thornhill. At present the whole situation presents a very unsatisfactory picture. Certainly, the major emergency in respect of health, shelter, starvation, malnutrition, etc. seems to be over. The majority of the people now have a roof of sorts over their heads. The clinic is in operation, and the incidence of malnutrition, gastro-enteritis and dehydration seems to be under control. Soup kitchens provide daily meals for thousands of children. Portable lavatories have been erected and a system to pipe water to various water points is in the course of construction. Everything is under control for the present and I think that our thanks must go to the many people—the department as well—who have worked night and day to alleviate the desperate situation of those refugees.

The solution so far, however, is only temporary. The big question remains what is to be done with those people. Those refugees are living in poverty; they have no means of subsistence. At present Thornhill provides temporary accommodation. But what of the future? I am aware of the fact that the department has purchased more farms. I think they have purchased six more, in addition to the two on which people are already living. Presumably these people are going to be located there as peasant farmers.

However, in no way can the land available be regarded as adequate. There are no job opportunities. Educational facilities are there, but as yet, they are inadequate. Prospects for the future are very bleak indeed.

Here we have a large pocket of dispossessed, poverty-stricken people and my question to the hon. the Minister is: What is he going to do about it? I do not want to hear the answer that this is now the responsibility of the Ciskei Government. This is one way of getting away from real responsibility. The actions of the Government have brought about this situation, and responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of this hon. Minister.

Firstly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is going to be done about more permanent accommodation. Winter is at hand, and in an area which is subject to extreme cold, tents are inadequate. A large percentage of the people there are at present housed in tents. Unless something is done in good time—and good time means now—there will inevitably be further sickness and a higher rate of mortality. I venture to suggest also that the situation is beyond the limited financial resources of the Ciskeian authorities. What Government policy is doing is to create a huge, sprawling, rural—perhaps one should call it semi-urban—slum. I believe that a total of eight farms is now available for settlement. However, those people were given an undertaking by the South African Government that they would not suffer by moving. In this House the hon. the Minister stated, and I quote—

The hon. the Minister also promised that the facilities to hold land on a quitrent system, based on individual tenure—similar to the system they enjoyed in what is now the Transkei—would be available to the refugees. If the hon. the Minister is a man of his word, and if his word means anything at all, perhaps he will tell us what his plans are. The lack of preparation for the refugees at Thornhill seems to indicate that he has no plans at all.

Then, there is also the situation of the Black people working in Queenstown. I am told that thousands of people settled, or to be settled, at Queensdale or at Ezibeleni object strongly to having anything to do with the Transkei and do not wish to fall under the authority of the Transkei Government. Has the hon. the Minister’s department any plans for those people? There are evidently at least 10 000 people involved. I have, in fact, written to the hon. the Minister on this subject.

A visit to that part of the country is an absolute eye-opener. In town after town Black people are accommodated in conditions of dire poverty. There are virtually no job opportunities. Amenities are primitive to say the least. School facilities are inadequate. One finds dedicated and often very hardworking public servants employed in the hon. the Minister’s department struggling to keep things going on a shoestring budget which is completely inadequate.

People live in absolute misery and squalor. One township I visited is the Black township outside Stutterheim, Mlungisi. This township has been regarded by the department as being temporary for something like two decades. By calling it temporary one has an excuse for spending no money at all to improve conditions. The hon. the Minister’s department does a very good job in the circumstances, but they are absolutely hamstrung with no money. When is the Government going to stop bluffing itself that areas like this township are temporary? They are not temporary. Black people are living in these townships. They are there to stay and are forced to live in conditions of hardship because the Government clings to the nonsensical and impractical theory that some time in the far distant future they will live somewhere else. What of the present? What sort of people are we breeding in these squalid conditions? If I had to dream up living conditions where the philosophy of communism would be most likely to thrive, I could not do a better job than the Government has already done. These slums can only be a breeding-ground for people who wish to change the status quo because it holds nothing for them. Typical of the problem in the Eastern Cape and Border areas are the Black townships adjoining Grahamstown which are regarded as temporary. The proposed removal scheme to Committees Drift and Glenmore is used as an excuse to do nothing about the unbelievably squalid conditions in which most of Grahamstown’s Black population live and to build no houses for the ever-increasing number of Black people. I was there a few weeks ago and I saw some of the foulest living conditions that I have ever seen in my life, and I have seen some pretty bad ones. One has to ask oneself the question: What sort of people are going to come from this sort of environment? We are creating problems for the future which will make our present problems look like kindergarten games. No Government and no country which has pretentions to Christianity or any other sort of morality can possibly allow this sort of thing to continue. We must divorce ourselves from impossible ideologies and get down to work. We must stop spending money and pushing people around for ideological reasons, and spend what money is available on removing a shameful and discreditable stain on South Africa’s name. For the sake of all of us and the future of our country it cannot be allowed to continue. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to the speech of the previous speaker. He addressed a number of questions directly to the hon. the Minister and I believe that the hon. the Minister will deal with him promptly. I should like to dwell on the migratory labour system as a specific component in our Black labour structure in South Africa. There are many ways in which the increasing Africanization of White South Africa can be opposed and, on the other hand, the exodus of the best people from the Black homelands can be prevented. The Government is collaborating with the homeland authorities in testing and applying various measures. We shall have to see what the future will teach us about this and what measure of success we shall achieve in this matter. However, I want to hold up the migratory labour system, as I have done on previous occasions, as an example of one of the most effective, normal methods of obtaining Black labour in our White fatherland. It is applied in Europe too in a very normal, acceptable and, I could almost say, sophisticated manner. We can learn lessons there which can be applied in South Africa. I want to quote a few interesting figures in order to prove this statement. The presence of approximately 8,003 million Blacks in our White fatherland is still a very real and thorny problem. On the other hand, the loss of the same number of people is just as great a problem for the homelands. On them, it has more of an economic effect, because they lose the knowledge as well as the earnings of those people, which are spent in White South Africa, although they should actually be spent in the homelands. These 8,003 million Black people represent 53,3% of the total number of Blacks in South Africa, including the Transkei. The total registered labour force of South Africa numbered 4,333 million on 30 June 1976—that is to say, 1,399 million from the homelands, of whom 1,005 million are migratory labourers, and 390 000 from neighbouring states. The final component of this labour force consists of 2,54 million. They are automatically drawn from the 8,003 million Black people present in White South Africa. This leads to an interesting calculation, viz. that every registered Black labourer living in a White area represents a unit or a family of approximately three. It is a little more than three, but let us take it as being three.

The first argument which I want to advance in regard to the significance of the migratory labour system, therefore is that if the system had been lacking, the present 1,005 million registered migratory labourers would also have been settled here in our White homeland. In terms of three people per unit, our grand total of 8,003 would have been increased to 11 million, which means that a further three million would have had to be accommodated. Fortunately this is not the case because the migratory labour system has met the need. There is another side to the picture too. If one million registered labourers could be channelled back to the homelands on the same basis of three for one, this in turn would mean a decrease of three million on the 8,003 million Blacks in South Africa. I wonder if the obvious meaning of these figures is grasped by the opponents and critics of the migratory labour system, especially the critics on the other side of the House.

In 1976, there were 1 358 464 migratory labourers in South Africa. The homelands produced 679 800, or 55%, while 352 900 or 26% of the labourers came from neighbouring states. 326 800 or 24% of the total migratory labour force came from Transkei. I can also provide the figures for KwaZulu and others, but time does not allow me to do so.

The earnings of the migratory labourers from the homelands amounted to R698,7 million. For KwaZulu it amounted to R271,6 million and for the Transkei the amount was R288 million. It has been calculated that 20% of the total amount of R698,7 million earned by migratory labourers is channelled to the homelands. This represents the small amount of R179,7 million, out of the grand total. The balance of R559 million represents an enormous loss to the homelands. That is an amount which is spent in White South Africa by the migratory labourers, i.e. money which they do not take back to the homelands. The neighbouring states, including Transkei, earned R600 million from migratory labour. In 1974-’75 a million Black workers—10% of them being women—were granted employment in South Africa on a migratory basis. A mere 20% of their total income represented 54% or R 139,75 million of the gross national income of the homelands. This is a meaningful figure within the context in which I tried to place it, namely that these people cause an immense gain to the economies of the Black homelands. Just think what it would mean to them if that amount could be increased from 20% to 60%. It would mean that the income of homelands could then be R419,25 million. Should a million registered labourers from the settled Black labour force which is still living in White South Africa go and live in the homelands on a migratory labour basis, it would mean that an additional R100 million could be transferred to their homelands by them. This could mean a stimulating injection for the economies of the Black homelands. I believe that the migratory labour system can be developed into the most effective method for achieving a balanced regulation of the presence of White and Black numbers in White South Africa if the necessary attention is paid to it and if a study is made in connection with modernized transport and the zoning of labour areas situated closer to our industrial complexes in order to shorten the distances in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that the hon. member for Orange Grove saw it fit to speak about the Bantu housing situation in Grahamstown. We have had a great deal of problems with housing in Grahamstown during the years and I have always believed that it was correct to act directly with the hon. the Minister’s department through the hon. the Deputy Minister concerned with the matter. Over the years I have had consultations and dealings with the successive Deputy Ministers and, if I may say so, with considerable success. The hon. member said that there is appalling squalor in Grahamstown at the present time. I think we shall all agree to that. The hon. the Deputy Minister has been there as well. However, to say that these people will all be removed to Committees and Glenmore, is totally wrong, because that is not the situation. No person who is employed in Grahamstown today will be forced to move from Grahamstown. As a result of the co-operation of the Cape Midlands Bantu Administration Board, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs and Secretary Van Onselen, we have started—and it is in advanced planning at the moment—a new home-ownership scheme whereby all those property owners in the Fingo village will be allowed home ownership at Grahamstown and nobody will be forced to leave there. I believe that the department is going to do a lot more in the near future to alleviate the position.

*Mr. Alan Paton wrote an interesting book with the title Cry The Beloved Country. I will shortly be writing a book with the title “Cry The Beloved Party”, for the poor UP has once again been caught out. I would say they have been caught out by the spontaneous and frank reaction of the hon. member for Eden-vale to the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member for Houghton used the riots in the Bantu residential areas and especially those in Soweto as motivation for her amendment with a view to the reduction of the salaries of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister entrusted with Bantu education. Could the hon. member not have waited until we had received the report of the Cillié Commission? They are the party that are always asking for a judicial commission. Now that a judicial commission has been appointed, they want to anticipate the report of the commission. The hon. member for Griqualand East replied to our very clear explanation of our standpoint with regard to the amendment of the hon. member. The hon. member for Griqualand East used land purchases in the Ciskei and Transkei as his motivation for his support of the amendment. The hon. member uses the purchase of land in Port St. Johns in particular in this regard, despite the fact that he is a Chief Whip. A motion appears on today’s Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Simonstown, a motion regarding this matter. This is why we cannot discuss it. The hon. member is also attacking the wrong hon. Deputy Minister, for the amendment does not concern the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, but it does concern the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. Then the hon. member also attacks the hon. member for King William’s Town and me, too, because we have many people in our constituencies who have been prejudiced by the releasing of land. Surely this is typical UP confusion. However, I can assure the hon. member that during the short time that the hon. member for King William’s Town and I have been sitting in this House, we have acted as mediators between our voters and the department in many more cases than that hon. member has acted in all his years in the House. However, I wish to leave the matter at that, for I also wish to discuss land purchases.

I do not believe that it is the policy of the Government that people in the released areas should be exploited by so-called agents and consultants. These are people who come and ask that they be given the business so that they can help the people on payment of a commission. Although I do not wish to mention names, I have a letter here which has a bearing on such a case and I shall send a copy of it to the hon. the Minister. This is the type of letter which this type of consultant sends out—

The letter goes on to state—

The places mentioned, are King William’s Town, Peddie and Port Alfred. One meeting was called at King William’s Town for Sunday, 3 April at 16h00. One of my voters attended one of these meetings and it appears that the firm asked for an option of two years. The people who accept their offer, must sign a written contract immediately under which 5% of the first R10 000 must be paid to the firm. Furthermore 2½% of the next R30 000 must be paid, and 1¼ % of the balance. The gentleman who attended the meeting, owns an average farm of approximately 800 morgen in the Peddie district. If he had accepted the offer, he expects, on the basis of the purchases which have already been made there, that it would have cost him R3 300. I think this type of action should be eliminated, for it can not continue in South Africa any longer. The people are struggling hard enough in the released areas. We all know that the shortage of money made it even more difficult for those people. I should like the hon. the Minister to take a strong action against this type of exploitation. This is something which no-one in this House can allow.

They can do it through their member of Parliament.

I have already said in this speech that they can do it for free through their member of Parliament. They can also do it for free by contacting the department directly. It is completely unnecessary that people should act in this manner. I also wish to say that we in these benches accept the fact that we have a plural society in South Africa. Therefore we accept everything which is positive in the policy of separate development, for it fits in with the federal ideas on which our policy is based. If any national group wishes to become completely independent, surely we cannot deny them that right During the years that I was a member of the UP, it was also part of the UP’s policy that they could deny that right. The UP and Mr. Marais also accept the plurality of our society. Therefore I find it difficult to understand why they do not state frankly that they accept what is good in the homeland policy, within the framework of their federal policy. If they had done this, we would have made much progress along the way which was indicated so clearly in this House by the hon. member for Maitland a few weeks ago, viz. that we as Whites must keep colour out of politics. Then we would also be able to get closer to the heart of the politics instead of criticizing each other here on colour policies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member who has just spoken that he made a very good speech. I should like to congratulate him on it.

I should also like to speak on a subject which has been raised here already, namely Bantu housing. I want to point out the backlog which existed in this sphere when this Government came into power. In spite of the backlog, we can be proud of what has been achieved in this sphere. If we look at the population growth of South Africa, we find that 250 years after the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, i.e. in the year 1902, there were only 6 million people in South Africa. Forty years later, in 1942, there were 13 million. Today there are 26 million. For a young country like South Africa, with its limited economically active population, it is an immense, practically impossible task for the State to provide accommodation to every one of these families according to their requirements and convenience. I want to refer to a book which was written by a certain English economist, Lady Barbara Ward-Jackson, after she had made certain investigations on behalf of the UNO. I quote—

This influential writer goes on to say—

If these authoritative facts are taken into consideration, I think that we can say to the world: “Come and take a look, provided that you are prepared to judge fairly.” When war broke out in 1939, almost all building activities in Bantu residential areas practically came to a halt. The hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that over a period of approximately 20 years before 1948, approximately 41 000 houses were erected in Bantu areas by the Government of the day. The war meant that building activities came to a halt, but on the other hand employment opportunities increased, as a result of which many Bantu moved to the urban Bantu areas. To mention just one example of how the number of Bantu in urban Bantu areas increased during the war years, I can refer to Orlando, which had 10 000 inhabitants in 1939 and 53 000 in 1945—an increase of 530%. Squatter camps mushroomed overnight and the houses there consisted of sacks and old rusty sheets of corrugated iron. These could not be removed since there was no alternative accommodation available. The lack of running water and effective sanitation made this undesirable squatter situation a threat to the health, not only of the inhabitants of the Bantu towns themselves, but of the surroundings and adjoining White towns and areas as well.

The Bantu workers there earned money and began to change in that they were no longer so eager to return to the homelands and rural areas. The NP came into power in 1948 and faced the facts of this situation. Between 1948 and 1963, i.e. in the first 15 years of the present Government’s rule, 248 000 Bantu houses were erected in urban Bantu areas. Until 1975, the distribution of houses amongst the inhabitants of urban Bantu residential areas was as follows: 6 675, or 1,4% of the total, were one-roomed houses; 44 273, or 9,5%, were two-roomed houses; 50 328, or 10,8%, were three-roomed houses; 261 847, or 56% of the total, were four-roomed houses; and 102 817, or 22,1%, were other types of houses. What is particularly interesting, informative and encouraging is the fact that 30% of these houses are already in the possession of the Bantu themselves. Thirty per cent of the houses and improvements on that land are already the property of the Bantu themselves. The land does not belong to the Bantu, but the houses and improvements do.

Let me mention two examples. The first one is Thembisa. Of the 13 499 houses in Thembisa, 7 473 or 55% belong to the Bantu. In Kaplehong near Germiston there are 14 362 houses, of which 10 685 or 75% belong to the Bantu. In many White urban areas the Whites own far fewer houses, percentage-wise, than the Bantu own in the two towns to which I have referred.

In terms of the policy of separate development, the ideal is to draw as many Bantu as possible to the homelands. From 1970 to 1973, 151 000 Bantu were resettled in the homelands, of whom 47 000 were resettled in Bophuthatswana, 29 000 in KwaZulu, 21 000 in the Ciskei, as well as a number of them in all the other homelands. In addition 53 000 homes were built in the homelands between 1970 and 1975, which brings the total to 141 067.

Mr. Chairman, in providing houses, one must ask oneself what a house is. The same criterion holds for everyone, White and non-White. In my opinion a house is a structure which provides shelter for the child, not only from the wind and the weather outside. Inside the house there are the warmth of parental protection and the solidarity of the whole family. The house provides privacy and security. It offers an opportunity for acquiring status, it provides physical amenities and an opportunity for self-expression. That is why it has been made possible under the Government’s policy for the Bantu to alter and modernize their homes, in order that they may have a share in them and be proud of them. In terms of the Government’s policy that the Bantu may own his own home, he must not only have the opportunity to live in it, but also to improve and modernize it. This gives him status amongst his people. It provides security for the child, for the Bantu child who also wants to be proud of those things which are his, who also wants to have a home where he can spend his time with his parents in the evening and can be happy and talk with the family, discussing the future of the Bantu homelands, where their future has been largely mapped out for them. That is why I think that the Government, this Minister and his department have a right to be proud because they can show the world achievements in connection with Bantu housing and because they have declared themselves willing to continue in this direction, and not only will they continue, but they will also give the Bantu the opportunity to have their own share in creating their homes in the homelands and in the urban areas where they may own a house and alter or modernize it themselves.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Meyerton one would think that everything in the garden of the African is rosy. He sees only the beautiful flowers and he smells only the lovely scent. He looks at the leaves, but he does not look at what is hidden behind those leaves, the thorns and the pin-pricks that are there all the time. He talks about a home and asks what is a house. He says a house is a shelter and the symbol of the unity of the family. But why does he not give the African the opportunity of developing his own house? Why must every African live in exactly the same house as his neighbour does? Those are the thorns behind the leaves of the roses. I think he must come back and put his two feet down on the earth and be a little bit more realistic.

I want to address the hon. member for Albany for a moment and say that this afternoon we saw the next instalment of the courtship of the NP by the IUP. It appears, however, that the Nat maiden is obviously playing very hard to get. In this case he again attacked my colleague, the hon. member for Griqualand East. If he had listened to what the hon. member for Griqualand East had to say, he would have understood exactly what he was trying to do. He put to the hon. the Minister the fact that an investigation has been called for by the hon. the Minister and that the police are investigating allegations of corruption. But that was over a month ago. It should be a simple matter to investigate because the name of the informant is known. The hon. member has named the public servant who is involved.

I believe, and I have been asked to say this by the hon. member for Griqualand East—I hope I can have the attention of the hon. the Minister—that the hon. the Minister should insist on a judicial commission of inquiry to establish the facts of what is a most unsatisfactory transaction. The hon. the Minister has conceded that. If there is no other reason for insisting on such an inquiry, it should be to clear the name of the hon. Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry, the man who was the Deputy Minister at the time and who was involved. Surely, as far as he is concerned, there is nothing to hide. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs himself has asked for an inquiry, and I believe that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is honour bound to insist upon such an inquiry.

I want to come back to the question of land ownership. The hon. the Minister in his reply quite rightly has pointed out that in the tribal areas land is owned by the tribe, that the chiefs give occupation rights for residential and agricultural purposes. I believe, however, that the time has come that that system has got to be changed. It cannot happen overnight. But I believe that the system of land ownership has got to be changed from one of a communal nature to one of individual ownership. It has got to happen slowly, because it is going to change the whole social system of the African people. I believe, however, that we have got to do it. The economy of the Bantu homelands, whether they be part of the Republic of South Africa or whether they be independent countries, cannot depend only on industrial development. Agriculture is the whole basis of their economy, and if their economy is to grow, agriculture must grow. However, as long as we have no ownership of land, as long as there is communal ownership of land, we are not going to be able to improve the agricultural economy of the country. We cannot improve it on a basis of peasant farming, and the time has come when the Bantu who shows some promise and potential has to be given the opportunity of owning his land. Potentially, the Bantu occupy today some of the most productive agricultural land in the country, and the time has come when we have to make use of it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, at the Agriculture ’77 congress held earlier this year in Pretoria, suggested that other people must be allowed to come in to take over this potentially productive land. He said—

*I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon whether he means that they should be White entrepreneurs, or whether he had Black entrepreneurs in mind—

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister now intend to make that land available to White entrepreneurs free of charge, or whether he wishes to make it available to Black farmers?

†In addition to the land which is presently in the hands of the African people—in the reserves, as we have always referred to them—there is other land which is now being made available, land which is being purchased from Whites for purposes of consolidation, land for exchange pruposes, additional land, in terms of the quota. This, I must point out, is all in areas which have been declared released areas. Therefore, the question of ownership is open. Any person may own that land today. I want to put it to that hon. Deputy Minister and to the hon. the Minister himself, that the time has come when they have to make it possible for African businessmen, entrepreneurs, farmers, to acquire that land in freehold. It is already released area. It is possible to use this as a way of breaking down the present structure of land-ownership in the reserves, a movement which, I believe, will be essential if the Bantu areas are to produce sufficient food for themselves. I do not suggest that we must do this now to interfere in the tribal system. I believe it is something which can be tacked onto it. It can be ancillary to the system we have today. It can supplement the system that we have today. It can be complementary to the tribal ownership system of land. I believe it will be an advancement from the traditional peasant farming system. It will provide food, and it will provide important opportunities for the Black farmers to develop into entrepreneurs.

I believe Black farmers have to be given the opportunity, through the ownership of land, to acquire capital, to acquire money, funds for the advancement of their businesses. If those areas which are adjacent to the Bantu areas, and which are required for occupation by Blacks, can be used now as the pilot scheme to allow African businessmen who want to acquire some land somewhere, to do so, even if it is under the guidance of White extension officers—possibly even White managers to begin with—this can be to the advantage of the African people themselves. There are many such Bantu businessmen, for example in the constituency of the hon. member for Pinetown. There are many in Soweto and other places. Of course, the whole scheme should be undertaken under the guidance of those people who are trained and who have the know-how.

Unfortunately I do not see the hon. member for Lydenburg in the House. On Friday the hon. member for Lydenburg attacked us on this side of the House for what he called propagating an open economic system, a system which, he believed, would be to the detriment of the Black people. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs also mentioned this question this afternoon. On both occasions I had to put them right that we on this side of the House have never advocated an opening of the Black areas to White entrepreneurs; that they should be allowed in there simply to “flood them out” in the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am glad to see that he nods his head. He concedes that we have never propagated that. The hon. member for Lydenburg certainly implied that we had. We have made it quite clear that we believe that if one is going to allow White entrepreneurs into the Black areas, it must be done under certain checks and safeguards to protect the Black people themselves. However, and this is where the hon. members have misunderstood us, we have said that in the central business districts of White areas Black entrepreneurs should be allowed to come in to compete against White entrepreneurs. This is where the economic opportunities are. The business opportunities are in the central business areas of Johannesburg, Cape Town, Pietermaritzburg and Durban. We believe that the Black trader must be allowed to come into these areas. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs wanted to know how we can allow the Black man to come in. He said that the Black man must be protected, otherwise he will be swallowed by the large White entrepreneurs because he has not got the financial ability to be able to survive. That is correct. The Black man has not got the financial capacity to stand against the White businessman. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it was only two years ago that I spoke on the subject in the House. The hon. the Deputy Minister was very interested in what I said. I must remind him that I pointed out to him then that there is a trading organization in South Africa—there were three, but unfortunately two have fallen away—known as “Save More”. It is an organization run by White enterprise, but which has as members also Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. It gives to the Black trader a buying power which he can never hope to achieve on his own. If that Black trader becomes a member he will obtain the opportunity to compete against Pick ’n Pay, O.K. Bazaars, Checkers and all the other big boys. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South occupied himself mainly with what I shall call the reformation of land tenure in the Bantu homelands and with what he sees in the first place as a step in the direction of developing the Bantu homelands in such a way that they will be more productive in the various spheres, the agricultural sphere in particular, which the hon. member regards as being the most important facet of the homeland activities. The hon. member asked a few questions with regard to the matter of the entrepreneurs who will be involved. I wonder whether he was referring to the same speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister in which he had referred to attracting entrepreneurs for the sake of management. If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South would be interested in an answer, I could provide it. However, the hon. members of the UP are not interested in a debate; they are just interested in their own voices. This makes a debate with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South very difficult. The hon. member made out a case for rural reform, while the matter which the hon. the Deputy Minister raised in probably the same speech, concerned the question of management. The hon. the Deputy Minister wants to attract entrepreneurship in particular. I quote—

In other words, this is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention. No sinister meaning attaches to this. If this is the same speech to which the hon. member referred, I think he should have studied the speech more closely and then he would probably have found his questions unnecessary. The hon. member probably did not take note either of what the hon. the Deputy Minister had said in the same speech with regard to land tenure rights. This is an important matter and for the record I want to quote what he said—

In other words, the prospect the hon. the Deputy Minister was holding out in this regard, is not a new cause which the hon. member is championing now. The department and the Ministry are thinking along these lines. This becomes quite clear from the quotation. The issue here is also that we must achieve a more effective utilization of our homelands, because at the moment the homelands are producing approximately 12% to 20% of their potential. The issue here is the control of water resources and the orderly utilization of land. The hon. member must understand very clearly that we are pioneering this line of thought. The hon. member’s positive contribution is probably to be found in the fact—and I find this so interesting—that he wants to suggest that freehold rights may be used to draw back those people who are already settled in White urban areas on the strength of the freehold rights they can acquire. It seems to me as though the hon. member is now seeing the light after as many as 11 years in Parliament. We thank him for this.

I should like to return to an aspect which the hon. member for Johannesburg North touched on in a previous debate and which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove today. The hon. member for Johannesburg North suggested that they would not support the decentralization policy of the Government on the strength of ideological reasons, but would do so on the strength of socio-economic reasons. Now to me it is very important that we should have a proper and very clear understanding of this party which is trying to draw this distinction as far as the principle is concerned. Are they telling South Africa that they will not support decentralization under any circumstances as long as it is done within the context of separate development? Is this what they are saying. The moment we say that we are doing it for socio-economic reasons, they accept it. Socio-economic considerations are the underlying principle of this policy. Over the years they have thrown suspicion on us in countries abroad because of this matter. On occasion I am interviewed by foreign visitors. On one such occasion they had spoken to various parties and they told me that they accepted our policy if it was based on socio-economic considerations. Anyone who doubts this, should go and read what Dr. Verwoerd said about this matter in the Tomlinson Report. Then he will realize that the issue here is common sense, socio-economic considerations.

This brings me to a very important matter, and that is the whole question of housing. When we are concerned with housing, we are basically concerned with a phenomenon of urbanization being present amongst the Bantu. This makes us ask ourselves whether we can deal with this purely on the strength of decentralization and purely on the grounds of socio-economic considerations and factors which we are creating in order to ensure that we do not have a flood of people looking for employment to wherever they think employment is available. I want to suggest today that we must recognize one phenomenon amongst the Black people of South Africa, accept it and interpret it. This is his urge for urbanization. We must not deal with this as a phenomenon which can be solved merely by creating industries and preventing people from moving from one place to another. I do not want to suggest that this will not be done. I do want to suggest, however, that we shall have to add a further facet to our existing measures, and that is intensive urbanization in the true sense of the word. The hon. member for Pinelands is looking at me now. I want to tell him that if we recognize this tendency, there is also a tendency for them to become urbanized in the Black homelands at a much faster rate than they are doing in the White areas today. For example, from 1960 to 1970 there was an increase of 78,4% in the urban population in the White areas, but in the Bantu homelands the urbanization process was 163,9%; in other words, the increase of the urban Black people in their own homelands is virtually three times as high as in the White areas.

This means that land is becoming an entirely new concept for the Black people. It means that there will not be such a strong insistence on their part as regards the amount of area of land which they are going to receive, but that the issue will be the opportunities which are created for them in the cities.

I do not want to debate this world phenomenon, but what I do want to debate is that hon. members want to accuse us of decentralizing purely for the sake of separate development and of bringing about urbanization in the Bantu homelands purely for that reason. They must stop criticizing us on the strength of purely socio-economic considerations. Having dealt with this, I want to request the Opposition to stop criticizing us when we want to develop urban complexes in the Bantu homelands. Moreover I am of the opinion that we shall channel all available capital which we would otherwise have invested in development, but which is not immediately meant for fulfilling the Black people’s need for urbanization, into actual urbanization.

When we have a unit of between 50 000 and 100 000 people, such a unit will, according to scientific data, generate its own economy. I can quote many authorities in this regard but I think hon. members accept that this is correct. Therefore my argument is that we should accept the tendency as a natural phenomenon and that we must interpret it as a socio-economic reason for decentralization to urban complexes in the Bantu homelands themselves and that we should develop the complexes with might and main and with imagination into self-generating economic units. If this is not done, it follows that the Bantu will move to the White areas and that this will cause tremendous socio-economic problems, not only for the Black people, but for everyone. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West raised the interesting aspect of the urbanization of the Bantu. I should have liked to do so too, but I should prefer to focus more on the Cape Peninsula and its environs. By the end of March this year there were 33 155 contract workers and 29 355 permanent Black workers—the so-called section 10 Bantu—in the area, falling under the Cape Bantu Affairs Administration Board, giving a total of 62 510 Black male workers legitimately in an area in which White and Brown workers have preference. Add to this figure the families of the permanent labourers and—according to the record—one has a total of about 122 000 Black people living here lawfully. I want to stress that this is only in the area of the Cape Bantu Affairs Administration Board. To this should be added the approximately 60 000 people who are here illegally. This figure is based on the estimate of officials, on the basis of the number of prosecutions per months multiplied by 12. In total, then, there are 182 000 Bantu in the area as against the 123 000 in the area in 1975. This is an appalling increase in the number of Black people living in the area. Among those present illegally are the squatters. Their numbers are particularly difficult to determine, because they do not squat on the land of the Bantu Affairs Administration Board, but on the land of other land-owners. The officials are therefore not free to count them. It is estimated that there are 15 000 souls at Crossroads at the moment. At present there are approximately 10 000 squatter huts at Crossroads and at three places on the land of the University of the Western Cape. On the land belonging to Graaff’s Estate, too, in the bush near Milnerton, there is an unknown number of Black squatters.

I am under the impression that those who are present illegally in this way and the squatters who are all squatting illegally are being urged by unpatriotic and irresponsible people and organizations to come here illegally and stay and to wait for concessions from the Government. Sometimes, perhaps, these people are not intentionally urged to break the law because this may be done for humanitarian considerations. However, I wonder whether we could not try to identify the intentional deception so that effective action may be taken against it. As far as I know it is against the law to incite people to commit these offences.

To what legal protection are these people entitled? It is a pity that a local authority that did its duty recently and threw out squatters, had to rebuild their shanties due to a court order. The events in regard to the squatters at the University of the Western Cape are now following more or less the same pattern. When people who break the law obtain protection of this nature from the law, in my opinion it is time for us to inspect our laws so that the officials that have to carry out the Government’s policy will have the right legislation backing them. All officials to whom this work is entrusted deserve every possible protection to ensure a success in their efforts.

I sincerely hope that it will be possible to clear up the Black squatter camps rapidly and that any further increase in the number of Blacks in the Western Cape will be jealously guarded against. I therefore advocate a drastic reduction in Black labour in the Western Cape so that the small number that are really needed here can be properly accommodated and looked after. In my opinion there are a few things necessary for this. For one, I think that those who are here illegally should be removed at once. In the second place, I think that all unnecessary Black labour should be removed from this area. By that I mean that I can no longer see why petrol attendants have necessarily to be Black, whereas we can no longer get petrol over weekends. Nor can I see any sense in the horse farmers wanting their horses cared for only by Black people. I do not think there is anything in that.

Where are you going to take them?

Where do they come from? Thirdly, in my opinion, it is necessary for the Coloured [Interjections.] I shall react further to the hon. member’s question in a moment. Just be a little patient. Thirdly, it is necessary for the Coloured to be trained and motivated to do his duty towards South Africa and his duty towards himself as well and to acknowledge that duty. They must become far more active and their own people must begin to inspire them in this regard and perhaps the Department of Labour, too, can assist them in that connection. If we can succeed in removing those who are there illegally and unnecessarily and can motivate the Coloureds to become more labour-effective and economically active, then I believe that there will be so few Black people remaining in this area that we shall be able to provide them with outstanding accommodation.

To achieve this we must also do the following, amongst other things: Black labour must be made very expensive in the Western Cape. Secondly, the punishments for illegal employment, illegal presence and illegal squatting must be overhauled, extended and strictly implemented. I believe, too, that the homeland Governments ought to acquire a substantial interest in the presence of its citizens in the White areas. Perhaps a fixed sum per contract worker should be paid so that that Government may have an interest in knowing how many of its people are beyond its borders, where they are, what they are doing and perhaps, too, what they are earning.

There is one other aspect which I should like to discuss, viz. the housing at present provided by employers of Black labourers in this area. They do this in consultation with the local bantu affairs administration board and I think that the scheme is called the employers’ scheme. The Cape Bantu Affairs Administration Board informs me that the following number of beds have been provided on the basis of this system: In Langa, 2 020 beds have already been provided in permanent buildings and 1 452 in temporary buildings. In Guguletu, 2 162 beds have been provided in permanent buildings and in Nyanga 2 080 have been provided in permanent buildings and 1 670 in temporary buildings. That is to say that 6 262 beds have already been provided in permanent buildings and 3 122 in temporary buildings. It is intended that the temporary buildings will also be replaced by permanent buildings in time. This, therefore, comprises a total of 9 384 beds for Black workers. [Interjections.] I just want to finish first and then the hon. member can put questions if there is time. This system is only a few years old and almost 10 000 workers are already being accommodated in this way. I am concerned about the situation. This area is a White and Brown area and they ought to be given preference. Last year a report was published in Die Burger on 29 September. The Institute for Manpower carried out an investigation and found that by 1980 the supply of male Brown workers in the Cape Peninsula would exceed the demand by about 18%. This, too, is a reply to the question of the hon. member opposite.

Now there is something which I should like to know. If Brown labour is available in sufficient numbers, numbers such as those indicated in this report, what moral right have the employers that are not providing accommodation to Black workers, to get Black workers again, despite the fact that Brown workers may be available at that stage? Do they not perhaps have a moral right in that case? However, if their right is refused, in what way can they be compensated for their capital investment? Is provision being made for their expenditure to be transferable to another employer who employs Black workers? I am aware of the housing problem. I am also aware of the shortage of funds for these purposes. That is why it is cause for gratitude that the employers have incurred the capital expenditure. However, I think that this system should really be limited to the absolute minimum so that it does not become a lever causing more and more Blacks to enter the Western Cape, notwithstanding the fact that Coloured labour is available for that work.

The people who want to employ Blacks must be obliged to take a great deal more trouble to obtain Brown labour. At the moment we find that they are prepared to go and recruit labour in the homelands at great expense, but there are very few of them who take the trouble to go and seek and recruit labour in the local Brown residential areas. I therefore believe that we must make it progressively more difficult and expensive for people to bring Black labour to this area so that we do not find ourselves faced by a bottleneck when the truth of this report is proved, namely that the Coloureds will not have work in the Western Cape and that their numbers will begin to exceed the employment opportunities available. We do not want large-scale problems to be created for us at that point.

Mr. Chairman, last year Transkei seceded from the Republic and later this year it will be Bophuthatswana’s turn. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether he expects there to be yet other territories which will follow this example, when he expects it to happen, what kind of time-table is unfolding in South Africa in this connection and whether there are any territories—and if so, which ones—which have made it clear to the Republic that they are not interested in secession from the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Minister knows what our point of view is on the idea of separate States. We believe that where there is a homeland that wants to secede, there can be no objections in principle if this represents a real desire on the part of the people living there. In other words, if it can be carried out to the full satisfaction of the inhabitants of that territory, there can be no objection in principle to the independence of a homeland. However, to ensure satisfaction there are a number of conditions which we believe ought to be complied with. The very first condition which ought to be complied with—and I am saying this now particularly because there is another territory that is on the point of becoming independent; apparently the hon. the Minister is engaged in negotiations at the moment—is that proof should be furnished in advance by way of an election, but preferably by way of a referendum, that it is the sincere desire of the inhabitants of that territory to become independent. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this is what will happen in the case of Bophuthatswana or any other homeland which wants to become independent in future. I do not believe we should ever lay ourselves open to being reproached at a later stage for having, as Whites, led people, against their will, into something with which they were not entirely happy. We should not lay ourselves open to doubt which could arise later or to the idea that a territory became independent due to any circumstances other than the fact that it was their own wish. The second important condition, in my opinion, is that no South African, White or Black, should be compelled to give up his birthright as a South African as a result of a territory becoming independent.

One of the primary requirements for a successful independence is that there should be satisfaction as regards the borders of the territory in question. I want to say a few words about this because there is cause for concern in regard to this matter. Hon. members will concede that there is a very close link between South Africa’s future security and the attitude of its neighbouring States. We have seen how South Africa’s security has been jeopardized due to the changes that have taken place in Mozambique, for example. The same applies to South West Africa and Rhodesia. If a country wants to continue to exist in peace—this applies to the Republic of South Africa—it must ensure that its neighbouring States live in peace with it and do not become sources of hostility towards it and perhaps even, at a later stage, springboards for action against it. I am sure hon. members opposite will concede this. We ourselves have never adopted the standpoint—I say this on my own behalf—that because a territory is Black or governed by Black people, it necessarily, for that reason, poses a danger to South Africa. That is certainly not my standpoint. However, when we create new neighbouring States, it is essential that we ought to see to it that they are not so full of grievances against us that they could in fact develop into a potential source of danger to us. In this regard I believe the Government is making a very serious mistake. Before the Government allows a territory to become independent it is essential, in my opinion, that any outstanding land or border issues be resolved satisfactorily. It is in the interests of all parties that before secession takes place there should be an agreement of this nature between the Republic and the territory that is becoming independent. To allow any border problems to stand over in the hope that they will be more easily resolved after independence is the result of wishful thinking.

At the moment we are faced by two practical examples. According to Saturday’s newspaper the Prime Minister of the Transkei referred to this matter. This is a re-report of what he said in the Parliament of Transkei—

I do not say it is possible for him to do so but nevertheless this is a dangerous attitude. The report adds—

Mr. Mangope, the leader of Bophuthatswana, also had something similar to say. I quote—

There are serious attitudes which are being expressed and from which it is quite clear that we ought to resolve all land issues before independence is made final. We are living in a time of serious threats to South Africa. We are threatened from all sides and the Government already regards us as being, in point of fact, in a state of war. South West Africa is already in the position of being threatened by an armed force beyond its borders, a force based in a neighbouring State. According to the facts at our disposal, similar forces are at present being planned to operate against the Republic of South Africa. There are international observers who are of the opinion that the basis of a guerrilla force against South Africa is being formed at the moment. It is an open secret that it is one of the initial strategies of terrorist forces to infiltrate into neighbouring territories, to undermine policies there and have leaders appointed who will be prepared to allow their territories to be used as a basis for subversive activities beyond those territories. I am not conjuring up spectres here. A few days ago there was a report of an interview with Prof. Ntsanwisi in Die Transvaler. He was asked about the possibility of independence for Gazankulu “perhaps with new borders”. His reply was—

This was not said by us who sit on this side of the House, but by an important leader of a homeland. Die Transvaler asks “What is your solution?” and he replies—

That is his view of the matter. If this is not done, he sees very great dangers ahead. There are other territories which also border on neighbouring territories and which could land up in the same situation as that which Prof. Ntsanwisi foresees for his own homeland. I want to repeat that I hope the hon. the Minister understands my point. There can be no objection to the principle of separation if it is accepted by the population there, but when independence comes, it must take place in such a way as to enjoy full agreement of the people of that territory so that we can depend on their friendship. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the arguments that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just advanced, illustrate one thing only, namely his deep-rooted wish that the Black people should not become independent. That is why he has now come forward with those arguments. Transkei became independent after an election had been held there to consult the nation, and the overwhelming majority of the people voted in favour of the party that stood for independence. With the border situation as it was then, the people said they wanted to become independent. The border demands that are being made are nothing strange. They are to be found throughout Africa. Transkei became independent knowing full well that it would be given the land that had been specified in 1936, and nothing more. It was on this basis that the people of Transkei expressed themselves in favour of independence. The Government of Bophuthatswana has also said that before it became independent, it would consult its people by way of an election. The only way to make sure that one has a good neighbour, one that is not communist, is to allow it to realize its national aspirations and national consciousness in the form of independence, and not to oppress it as that hon. member wants to do.

I should like to reply to a number of questions put by hon. members on matters that are my responsibility. I want to begin with the hon. member for Albany. He raised the question of agents who make themselves available to attend to the affairs of landowners in the released areas. I want to tell that hon. member in the plainest possible language that we do not negotiate with agents or middlemen or even with persons who have options on land. We deal with the lawful owner. In the final analysis, the offer is made to the registered owner of the land. If a farmer wants to appoint someone to speak on his behalf, we cannot prevent him from doing so. But this will not help him at all. No other outsider can alter the priorities. No other person could bring about any change in the price we are going to pay because the price is determined by a prescribed legal procedure and it is that fixed price that is offered to the owner. An agent has no influence on this. Neither the Minister, nor we who work with this, can influence it, except in the case of the amount that is paid out for loss or inconvenience. This, too, is done according to a formula. Prices are based on valuations and intermediaries cannot exert any influence on these. If farmers were to appoint other people to act as intermediaries, they would be wasting their money. If they want to waste their money, however, we cannot prevent them from doing so.

I want to turn to the question of Thornhill, a matter that was raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. It was clear to me that it was not pleasant for the hon. member to have to admit that things were going well at Thornhill and that the whole situation there was under control. The hon. member had wanted things to go badly at Thornhill. This, of course, was for a certain reason. In my opinion the way the newspapers wrote about it—as well as the way in which the hon. member and his colleagues presented the matter—portrayed the people at Thornhill as being in the same category as the refugees from Angola who are in Owambo. This is simply another of their ways of trying to get at Transkei, because they have not yet accepted the fact that Transkei has become independent. That is why they are still persisting with their rearguard skirmishes.

I want to deal briefly with the question of Thornhill. In last year’s budget—in the additional appropriation as well—funds were made available for those people who wanted to go from Herschel and Glen Grey to the Ciskei. R2,6 million was made available from the department’s savings. Compensation was paid to the Government of the Ciskei for assets, inter alia, school equipment and other things. An amount of R1 077 million was used to that end. Provision was made in the additional appropriation last year for a grant-in-aid to the Government of the Ciskei for water supply and so on, as well as for payments of compensation for the properties of those people who wanted to leave Herschel and Glen Grey. They received compensation on the strength of a valuation of their properties. R2,2 million was used to that end. Furthermore, an amount of R1,02 million was paid to the Government of the Ciskei for community, health, welfare and related services. All these items give us a total of R6,9 million, the amount that was budgeted for in the main and additional appropriations for this purpose last year. This does not include money used for the purchase of land. Funds are being appropriated for this in this year’s budget as well. This is apart from a further amount that is also being appropriated.

Now I want to refer to another matter. In accordance with an agreement with the Government of the Ciskei, the South African Government is responsible for the financial implications of moving those people. The Government of the Ciskei is planning the resettlement in that area and is also putting it into effect. The hon. member said that there was no plan. I put it to the hon. member that the Government of the Ciskei has the situation completely under control. Planning has already been done for the whole area. This is even true of the farms that are still to be purchased. The Government of the Ciskei has the permission of landowners whose land has not yet been purchased, to enter the properties and to dispose of the planning of the whole area in order to decide to which chiefs the various parts are to be allotted. The chiefs have already been consulted. The chiefs know where they are going to be settled. They have accepted this, and at this stage the plan is being put into effect.

I want to point out at this stage that as far as accommodation facilities are concerned, the department has placed 4 100 tents and 540 huts at the disposal of the Government of the Ciskei. Prefabricated wooden houses are now also being bought from a factory in the Ciskei. These are being purchased by both the people and the Government of the Ciskei as well as the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The houses are sold at a very reasonable price and the people are being settled in them.

The hon. member talked about 60 000 people. There are not 60 000 people in Thornhill. The RSA’s Department of Health made a team of physicians available, as well as a group of other medical officials, people who were active for three weeks in that area. They carried out a demographic survey and also undertook an inoculation programme. Whilst engaged in this, they sprayed all the houses at the same time. They counted every person, blanket and house. They counted 15 000 people in Thornhill. Not all the people in Thornhill come from Herschel. There are people who come from other places as well. There are 2 800 families to which the department has paid valuations. The Ciskeian Government carried out a survey which indicated that 1 400 families had agricultural rights. The people—this answers another of the hon. member’s questions—who had agricultural rights in Herschel, will be given agricultural rights in this area.

The hon. member also spoke of a clinic and said that something was in fact being done. In Thornhill there is not only one clinic but two, as well as three sub-clinics. There is a team of nurses on duty and the area is also visited by a physician from time to time. Recently, a group of private physicians, who had nothing to do with the Department or with the Ciskeian Government, visited the area, just as that member did. They reported to the Ciskeian Government that as far as health was concerned, the situation was completely under control and that they could only find four children who were possibly suffering from malnutrition. There are shops and cafés in the area. Not all the people there are poor. People at Thornhill are much closer to job opportunities than they were at Herschel. If the hon. members know where Herschel is situated, then let them tell me what major job opportunities are to be found near Herschel. At Thornhill the people are close to Queenstown and on the main routes to East London and the other large centres. Therefore they are much closer to job opportunities and, what is more, they are much closer to communication and transport facilities. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member says there is no plan. But there is a plan that was drawn up by the Ciskeian Government. We placed officials at their disposal to do this and we also appointed a consultant to help with the agricultural planning. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rising merely to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his gesture. Over and above this, a co-ordinating committee has been established. This comprises officials from the Ciskeian Government Service, from the various departments concerned and from the various branches of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development that can provide assistance and advice. The committee is under the chairmanship of the Commissioner-General, whilst the department has made administrative staff available to do the planning and to put it into effect. That is why I can say that as far as Thornhill is concerned, the situation is under control. The hon. member said we did not know what was going to happen there in the future. But the planning has already been completed and there is a firm foundation for putting this planning into effect.

I now want to deal with the important aspects touched on by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in relation to agricultural matters in the homelands. Firstly, there are two things which, to begin with, I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The first is that agriculture in the homelands is the responsibility of the homeland Governments. The Government of every homeland has a Minister and a Department of Agriculture. Therefore, agriculture falls under the jurisdiction of the homeland Government. The Republic’s Department acts only as an adviser. Secondly, the hon. member asked what was being done to promote the free enterprise system, the capitalist system, there. The economic system in operation in the homelands is a capitalist system, a system of free enterprise. The hon. member must not adopt the standpoint that because there is no private ownership of land, there is not a free capitalist system. This is not true. What does happen, is that the land belongs to the chief and he gives occupational rights to every subject who according to the standards of his tribal council qualifies for them. Then that man uses the ground for his own account. What he produces does not go into a common pool for the tribe, but is his own. He produces it with his own capital and the revenue from this is for his own account. In other words, it is a capitalist system, a free enterprise system. The cattle he owns, are his and not the tribe’s. So it is in every other field.

[Inaudible.]

Now the hon. member asks what is being done to make loans and capital available to encourage this. In the first place, there are the co-operatives which make loans available to private farmers to obtain means of production and thereby achieve bigger harvests. The homeland governments do this. Co-operatives have also been established within the homelands by the homeland Governments. There are already 72 co-operatives functioning and making credit available by way of cash, seed, fertilizer or other requisites in order to encourage production. These concerns have been operating since 1967. The cash returns are added and an appropriation is made every year. So the amounts become larger. In other words, therefore, there is ample opportunity to obtain loan capital.

On the subject of land ownership, I want to tell the hon. member that all of us here are naturally in favour of private land ownership. We also believe that it is a nation’s right to decide on its own path, course and tempo of development. We advise the homeland Governments; we shall not compel them to impose private land ownership on their citizens. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West referred to the fact that at this stage, good progress is being made with regard to that matter. Two homeland Governments have appointed Select Committees to review the system of land tenure. They have reported to the cabinets and the latter accepted the reports. The matter will now be submitted to the legislative assemblies. These reports state that the land tenure and occupational rights that the people have, must be registered. It must be possible to make them negotiable and they must be registered by a land board—similar to our deeds offices. Anyone who does not want to cultivate his land must be able to hire it to someone else. The homelands have taken a sound step in that regard. It is better to progress sten by step and first to make those rights negotiable than to take people’s rights away in revolutionary fashion and implement private land tenure. They have also decided that freehold ownership may be permitted.

I want to tell the hon. member that we have made it possible for Whites to be of assistance at all levels in agricultural development in the homelands. There is an umbrella committee which comprises organized agriculture, trade and industry, the motor federation and so on. This committee carries out overall planning and determines requirements. In addition, there is a planning committee within every homeland. Every homeland has a planning advisory committee under the chairmanship of the chief minister. Organized agriculture is also represented on this committee. Then there are local work committees on which the local farmers and the local Blacks can plan together how the Whites can assist as far as entrepreneurship is concerned and develop the entrepreneurial ability of the Black man. I want to repeat what the hon. member said. The most important single factor for development in the homelands, is entrepreneurship.

The question of land is a delicate issue for the homelands. We certainly do not envisage enabling Whites to buy out the Black people’s land in the homelands. The homeland Governments have that assurance. We are not merely saying this; the history of the NP during the period it has been in power, proves that we believe that the land should be reserved for the Black people, but that White initiative is necessary in order to help them develop their country and the entrepreneurial ability of their Black entrepreneurs. For that reason, Whites can be of assistance at all the various levels. White co-operatives can help the homelands. We have a wonderful example of a White co-operative that helped a homeland co-operative and 139 individual farmers. It did not help by merely providing capital, but also helped in planning and provided the necessary management skills. The 139 farmers who took part in that project are going to reap a harvest of between 70 000 and 100 000 sacks this year. This is a wonderful effort. The Black entrepreneur is the primary factor, however, and the White man has not gone there to take over. As a further example, there was a chief in the hon. member’s province whose people all pooled their land and who approached a White entrepreneur, requesting him to plant longterm crops on their land. There was a cost factor involved in the project, however, and it was decided that the first harvest should be the White man’s so that he could recover his costs. Thereafter, as from the second harvest, the yield would go to the chief and his people and the White entrepreneur would act only as a contractor to provide them with services. This is how White individuals, organizations such as co-operatives, and organized agricultural unions can be of assistance in various fields with the development of agriculture in the homelands.

A final aspect I want to discuss, is the statement made by the hon. member for Houghton that the figures of the hon. member for Lydenburg were incorrect and that the homelands did not, in fact, compare so favourably with African countries. The hon. member for Houghton said that the migrant labourer’s salary was added to the revenue of the homeland. That is not true, because only that part which goes to the homelands is added to the gross national income of the homeland. [Interjections.] The portion that remains behind, is not added to the homeland’s gross national income. The migrant labourer himself is included in the homeland’s population. The hon. member said that we did not come near to succeeding in providing for job opportunities and she quoted certain figures in that regard. What we are doing, is extra. The normal development is still in progress. For example, up until 1975, the IDC was responsible for 75 000 job opportunities, 90% of which were for non-Whites. In the same period, another 55 000 job opportunities occurred which were not created by industrial decentralization funds, but which resulted from normal development. This therefore gives us a total of 130 000 job opportunities.

Within or outside the borders?

On the border. An important aspect that the hon. member is forgetting, is that this necessitates the building of towns in the homelands, that roads have to be laid and that shops have to be constructed. A conservative estimate is that the 130 000 job opportunities have created another 130 000 job opportunities within the homelands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to learn from the hon. the Deputy Minister what the White farmers in certain areas are doing, and we support them, because they are doing good work.

As far as Thornhill is concerned, we have asked the hon. member for East London City to inform us about the circumstances there. The hon. member said that the basic problem with regard to Thornhill was, as was pointed out by the hon. Minister, that there was no administration. Evidently there had been no advance planning either. Now it seems to me that the hon. the Minister has accepted the advice of the hon. members, has introduced a little administration and order, and now things are going a little better at Thornhill. However, the hon. the Minister completely missed the point made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. The issue of land ownership for Blacks does not concern only the fact that they own a few head of cattle. What free enterprise is striving for is for a Black man to be able to own land. If a wealthy Black man wants to buy a farm in a White area—it is his own concern if he wants to appoint a White farm manager—it is important that he should be able to acquire the right to land ownership. We know what the position is under a captain system. The man who wants to extend a little, cannot go further. I do not think the hon. Minister has really answered our questions in this regard. In any event, we are not satisfied with his reply.

†During this week another storm burst around the hard head and thick hide of the hon. the Deputy Minister, the most junior one, the one responsible for Bantu Education. We have had a history of hard-headedness from this man. In the Burgersparkgemeente he clashed head-on with the people and with the missionary section of the D.R. Church. In Kameeldrift he is still knocking his hard head against the people. We now find that once again he is stirring up trouble on the East Rand by attempting to apply subsection (7) of section 9 of the Urban Areas Consolidation Act. Even the late Dr. Verwoerd accepted that it was better not to touch that section, because the churches, quite rightly, took the strongest exception to it. Why is the hon. the Deputy Minister again trying to stir up trouble in this area? I believe he is doing so for political motives. If we have a turbulent political priest in this House, that man is a turbulent political ex-priest! I outlined all this in a long letter to him on 20 September 1976 to which, incidentally, I have not had an acknowledgement or a reply. This hon. Deputy Minister is stirring up political trouble with the churches. He and his colleagues are fond of describing the hon. member for Pinelands as the midwife or one of the midwives of Black power, which he may well have been. The hon. Deputy Minister was, however, the man who helped to conceive Black power because he was one of the people who used White power to destroy the Students’ Christian Association, or the Christelike Studente-vereniging, as it was better known, and that gave birth to the University Christian Movement which spawned Black power. I believe that the hand of God moves in a mysterious way. Not only does He put a man like Beyers Naudé of the Christian Institute, whose father founded the Broederbond, in the position that he is in, but he also helps a man like that Deputy Minister to establish Black power in this country and then lets the political albatross of Soweto hang around his neck. This political ex-priest, our hon. Deputy Minister, is looking for confrontation with the churches. He knows that this issue will bring confrontation. I want to quote from Acts, chapter 4, in the Good News Bible. In this chapter the leaders of the Sanhedrin called in Peter and John and they said to them that under no condition were they to speak or teach in the name of Jesus—

When they were arrested they called them in and said—and I quote the following from Acts 5, verse 28—

In verse 29 Peter and the other apostles answered—

We have a lot of attempts to seek Church-State confrontation in this country and it is a load of rubbish. The whole liberal bandwagon tries to look for it. In this particular issue there is a valid reason for Church-State confrontation and I believe that that hon. Deputy Minister is mischievously stirring up trouble. Why is he doing it? He wants to attack the hon. the Prime Minister’s new policy because he knows that the public of South Africa and the Nationalist Government have realized that racism and apartism are unacceptable.

I want to read what Prof. Johan Heyns, one of the finest theologians in the reformed world today, says about this. He says—

This is a quotation from a lecture he delivered at the congress of the Afrikaanse Calvinistiese Beweging. He continued—

*This hon. Minister now wants to turn back the clock, and I really believe that he is going to have troubles. I only hope that he will be somewhat wiser now and leave the matter there for the time being.

†I really want to deal with housing, and I should like to address my remarks to the most senior Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He has developed—and we were very pleased to hear about it—a compendium of the housing requirements in the so-called White areas of South Africa. He mentioned that again in his speech earlier. Could he tell us whether this compendium is going to include projections of the housing requirements in the existing urban areas for the next 10 or 15 years. Does the survey include housing requirements in homeland areas where these adjoin or serve so-called White areas? Does the hon. the Minister then also have a master plan for the development of housing in the greater Durban area in order to house the estimated 300 000 to 350 000 people at present in need of housing? I want to draw the attention of the House to a report in The Natal Mercury about Durban’s squatter crisis. It is estimated that at least 350 000 people are involved, and this report has been compiled on the basis of information from the KwaZulu Department of Community Affairs, the head of which used to be an under-secretary in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and also on information of the Port Natal Board. I therefore believe that we have an urgent need, in the Durban area, for housing, and I should like to know what the hon. the Minister is going to do about it. Is there a total plan rather than a plan based on crisis situations, i.e. a plan going from one state of existence to another instead of a long-term project taking into account population increases, urbanization and other requirements? As I have said before, in the Durban area there are no ideological problems. There are no “Wit gebiede”. It is homeland all round. In fact, it is the Whites who form the White spot in the middle of the big Black area. It is therefore simply a housing problem and not an ideological or political problem.

Finally, I just want to tell the House and the members opposite who are very concerned about good race relations that I had two excellent public meetings in Clermont attended by several hundred and in total more than 1 000 Black people. If hon. members wanted to see good relations at work, they should have come to those meetings. They would have had their hearts warmed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the two years that I have been here, I have never really had great respect for the hon. member who has just sat down. It is not fitting for a so-called “brother” to deliver such a tirade. I think it is a disgrace. I want to leave it at that.

I would rather raise a more positive point. The Bantu Affairs Administration Board for the Southern Orange Free State area was established on 1 August 1973, and I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Welkom and express sincere appreciation and gratitude to this board and its officials. However, this board also has a problem. This board regards it as its duty, inter alia, to clear up the unhealthy housing conditions in the rural Bantu townships. Since the establishment of this board 948 houses have been built in eight rural towns. The amount approved by the Department of Community Development for this was R996 485, while the actual costs involved amounted to R1 094 478. In other words, the actual costs amounted to 109,8% of the approved amount, but the amount received by the board up to now is only R637 042. That is 64% of the approved amount or only 58% of the actual costs. The average cost per dwelling in respect of these 948 houses was R1 145. With the exception of one town, i.e. Brandfort, the board is bearing a loss on the other seven schemes. The rent that ought to be charged at the moment—it includes the rent of the premises—is an average of R11,09 per month for the seven towns, while the rent that is actually paid by the occupants is only R7,20 per month. That means that 65% of the rent is being paid by the occupants while the board is obliged to find the remaining 35% in some way. The average income per household in the seven towns is R57,08 per month. Therefore, the rent that ought to be charged is 19,4% or one-fifth of the income of the occupants, while the present rent that is in fact paid, is 12,6% or one-eighth of the income.

If one looks at the position of Brandfort where the full economic rent is being charged and one compares this to the wage structure in the town, one finds that the average income per household is R63 per month and the rent R16,39. In other words, the rent is 26% or more than a quarter of the occupant’s income. This indicates that the position with regard to Brandfort is in point of fact exactly the same as the position with regard to the other seven towns. The total loss up to 31 March 1977 the board has had to bear on the six schemes amounts to R64 294, while the annual loss as from 1 April this year will be R38 256. If the financial position of Brandfort is also taken into account, the annual loss on these schemes will be even bigger.

There are eight more rural towns and three smaller towns where the housing is in a very poor condition. It is budgeted to build 1 250 houses in these eight towns. If one takes into account the fact that the present annual loss on the 948 houses which have already been built, amounts to more than R38 000, and one readily accepts that the costs of the additional houses will be at least the same per house, it means that one may expect that there will be a further annual loss of more than R50 000. Therefore, if the housing programme for the rural areas that the board is planning at the moment can be completed, it will mean that it will have an annual loss in excess of R88 000. Unless something drastic is done, the Bantu Affairs Administration Board will therefore not be able to undertake any more housing in the rural areas and it will even find it difficult to beat the existing annual loss.

As a result of the few job opportunities, the lack of industries and the lack of growth in these towns, the chances are very slim that there will be any significant increase in the income of the residents. If one studies the income and expenditure for the past financial year, one sees that the bad financial position is very clear. If one has regard to the fact that the assurance was given that the income in the agricultural sector would not be utilized in terms of the Contribution in respect of Bantu Labour Act for balancing the budget of a Bantu town, the financial position is even worse. The income and expenditure budget for 1977-’78 shows as estimated deficit of more than R300 000. Therefore the board does not have the means to undertake any further housing in the rural areas unless financial assistance can be obtained from the Government or from other bodies for this purpose. Because the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards liaise up as well as down, their welfare is of vital importance in the whole set-up of public administration. An essential condition for good administration is that the board has an adequate income to perform the functions entrusted to it. Insufficient money can land a public body in an unenviable position. For sound financial relations between the various boards to be established, it is not only necessary that each board has an adequate income, but even that the various boards be accorded equal treatment. For that reason I want to maintain that the amounts that are allocated from year to year on an ad hoc basis is not a desirable state of affairs, and that it may have serious and harmful effects in the long run. I want to make a plea tonight for the financing of Bantu Affairs Administration Boards to be placed on a firm foundation. In the formulation of such a new foundation an in-depth study must be made of the necessary statistical information and analyses. The greatest burden does in fact rest on the shoulders of the State and the inhabitants of the townships concerned, but private undertakings, and, to be specific, especially the employers concerned, have a very important role to play, in the first place in the housing and the improvement of the housing for their employees, in the second place in the provision of recreation facilities, and in the third place in the strengthening of the family and community life. Private undertakings can do a great deal to solve social problems. For that reason I want to ask for a new formula, to ensure not only that sufficient funds will be available, but also that there will be equal treatment between the various boards. What is more important, is that there should also be equal treatment between the urban and rural complexes within the area of a single board. It is also essential that the boards receive funds for capital requirements on a fixed basis, because capital expenditure extends over a period of years and it is not desirable to make estimates year after year.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development participated in this debate and that he took such a strong stand about the situation in connection with the buying of land in the released areas. I am especially grateful that he told the owners that they were wasting their money if they made use of an intermediary, whether he be an attorney or a consultant. I hope that this warning will enjoy wide publicity in South Africa, because I believe that no one in this House wants to see innocent people exploited.

A few days ago under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, I dealt with unemployment amongst the Blacks and I pleaded the cause of the possibility of a special Black service battalion or perhaps battalions. A lack of time made it impossible to deal with this matter fully. It is important, because it is not only a question of unemployment; there is also the real problem of the won’t work category. These people will also have to be included and used in their own interest and that of their own people. I am not speaking of a military battalion; I am speaking of a training battalion to train unemployed people so that these lie-about types may be absorbed, disciplined and trained, instead of filling our prisons. If our White children can sacrifice two years of their lives to the service of South Africa, I believe that this type of person can also sacrifice two years of his time for South Africa. They can be employed to help alleviate the housing shortage and with the development of schemes in the homelands and in the Black townships. I believe it is something which we must consider seriously, because at this stage it is a very important subject.

While I am on the subject of housing and the utilization of labour, I also want to say something more about the home-ownership schemes and the housing of non-Whites within the White areas. The hon. the Minister replied to this very clearly and stated his point of view very clearly. I also discussed this matter under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, as I regard this as an important and sensitive matter. Freehold ownership is working very well in the homelands, and is being applied to an ever-increasing extent in the homelands. It is a very fine scheme. If one applies the minimum building standards and health measures impartially, as is done in the White residential areas, shanties will not be built. The Black townships in the White areas of our country are separate residential areas, and should remain such. A class division is, however, emerging more and more in these townships. That is why I am against raising this matter for discussion under the Vote of the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development. Why cannot we divide these Blacks into categories according to which houses will be built by the State for the poorer groups, while a home-ownership scheme for the middle-class group and freehold ownership for the rich and moneyed Blacks are introduced? It is absurd to persist in the idea that those people will be in the White areas only temporarily. There will always be some of them in White areas. Thousands of them will be dwelling everywhere amongst us in future.

At this stage the White taxpayer carries the full burden for the housing of Black people. Why cannot we make those Black people happy by making them the owners of their own plots of land and of their own homes? There is enough Black capital for the building of houses. There is even enough Black capital for the building of flats. But how can the Black capitalist, the Black entrepreneur, build a block of flats if he cannot obtain ownership of it? An investor must at least have the right to own what he builds. I believe that if such a scheme were to be put into operation, the matter would not be aggravated. If one of those rich Blacks decides to settle in a homeland, he can always sell his house or his block of flats to one of the other rich people still living in that area.

I am very far from being a liberal, but I believe that we in South Africa should combine our forces in the struggle against communism. Our best ally in this struggle is the non-White middle-class and the non-White élite. Without ownership they cannot, however, attain this status in a full and equal manner. I believe that it is a vitally important matter which we are discussing. I also believe that Bantu residential areas form separate parts of South Africa within White South Africa. I do not believe that the scheme which I am advocating can become uncontrollable in any way. The big and important fact is, however, that if we grant Blacks freehold ownership, whether in a homeland or in White South Africa, we have to treat them absolutely on a par with regard to health services, as well as with regard to the minimum building standards.

In the old days, in those days when hovels appeared in our Black residential areas, this happened only because the local authorities applied double standards. The same standard which was applicable to White residential areas was not applicable to Black residential areas. In this way the question of overpopulation arose, and then slum areas developed.

I believe that we shall save the taxpayer an enormous amount of money and that the Department of Bantu Administration will enjoy strong support if such a system were to be introduced.

Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, is that no agitation and no riots took place in my constituency. In my constituency no schools were burnt down either. I believe that Black people in that constituency should be given some preferential treatment for having acted so responsibly, if they request additional housing or an additional school. I hope that the hon. Minister will take that into account if applications are submitted for more housing and schools in the constituency of Albany. I, as a White Member of Parliament, must thank the Blacks in my constituency for the responsible way in which they acted during the past riots. I think the reason why they acted in this way is because they have such close relations with a good Bantu Affairs Administration Board and a good MP.

That will be the day!

The hon. member says: “That will be the day!” When I have to fight an election against the PRP now and then, I always receive a telegram of good wishes for the election from my Black friends in the Bantu residential area and each time when I have won, I also receive a number of telegrams from them congratulating me on my victory.

From both of them?

There are many more than two. The whole question of Bantu administration is something which we shall have to argue and debate like grown-ups in this House in future. I believe the time has arrived—and I was saying that at the end of my last turn to speak—when we as representatives of the White people should act as grown-ups and that we should find one another. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as usual, the hon. member for Albany made a constructive speech. He made a very good contribution and requested, inter alia, that a Black service battalion or battalions be established. He put other questions as well, but I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister to react to those questions.

I have a completely different subject I want to deal with and that is the question of Bantu wages in the agricultural sector. In recent times a great deal has been said about this matter. A Chief Minister of a homeland, Mr. Mopedi, amongst others, has also spoken out strongly in this regard. I should like to quote what he said according to Die Beeld of 22 January 1977. At the top of the report is printed in bold type “Suid-Afrika kan hom skaam”. The report reads—

I think the Chief Minister has done the White farmers of South Africa a very great injustice by making a statement such as this. I want to contend that this is very far from the truth and I shall prove it in my argument.

It would be very unfair to compare the wages of farm workers in the agricultural industry to wages in other sectors of our country. In the agricultural industry remuneration is also offered in the form of rations, goods, services and housing. It is difficult to calculate the value of this remuneration, but it has to be taken into account in order to draw a meaningful comparison. At a Sabra congress in September 1974 the hon. the Minister of Agriculture pointed out in a speech that the wages of farm workers were made up of cash wages, which varied from 10% to 90% of the total remuneration, and of the necessities of life, like food and other requirements. According to him the wage situation on White farms was seen as a matter of family care in which the entrepreneur, as a guardian, sincerely tried to ensure proper care being taken of his employees and their families in all circumstances. Consequently many a farmer finds it difficult to terminate the services of his farm workers without any further ado, in contrast to the situation in the cities where the employer is not concerned with a sheltered form of existence for the worker and his family.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, Mr. C. J. P. Cilliers, director of the S.A. Agricultural Union, said the following in this regard on the programme “Monitor” on 16 August 1974—

I fully agree with what these two hon. gentlemen said. I want to make the statement that for the past few years the master/servant relationship is no longer prevalent on our farms; instead, there is a worker/guardian relationship. It makes me very unhappy that I have a priest in my constituency who reminds me very much of the hon. priest for Pine-lands. He is making mischief amongst the Blacks and he is using his church services to tell the Black workers that they are working for starvation wages, dressing in rags and living in hovels. One of the members of this priest’s congregation who works for a White farmer and who had the necessary confidence in his employer, went and told him about this. The employer replied: “But surely this is not true?” This underlines the attitude of worker towards guardian. But that is not all. After a thorough investigation it came to light that this priest’s farm workers received R5 a month less than the average cash wages paid by farmers in that area. The wages which he pays, do not include food either. The White farmers supply food to their farm workers in generous quantities. It is this type of person who does not practise what he preaches and who is bedevilling good relations.

I want to give a few statistics from a survey undertaken by the Department of Statistics in 1976. These statistics relate to salaries, wages, overtime payments, bonuses, commission and other cash allowances. The earnings of regular farm workers were R94,11 per capita per year in 1968-’69. During 1974-’75 they were R221,41, in other words an increase of 135,3%. If remuneration in natura is taken into account, the following per capita wages per year are received in the farming sector according to the Department of Statistics—and the value of housing for workers is still not taken into account: During 1968-’69 the remuneration was R135,42 and during 1974-’75 it was R315,18, an increase of 133,7% since 1968-’69. Arguments exist why earnings in the farming sector—as determined by the Department of Statistics by way of census reports—are perhaps not a reliable picture of the real wages and salaries in the farming sector. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is conducting production cost surveys in the Swartland and Rûens wheat-growing areas and in the maize-growing areas of the Western Transvaal, the Transvaal Highveld and the North-Western Free State. These surveys indicate the wage structures. In the first place I am referring to the wheat-growing districts. The average annual wage in the year 1970-’71 was R249,13, but in the year 1975-’76 it was R406,91. The remuneration in natura—once again the value of housing is not included—was R226,12 in 1970-’71 and R496,13 in 1975-’76. In other words, this gives us a total of R475,25 for the year 1970-’71 as against R903,04 for the year 1975-’76. If we divide this amount R903,04 by 12, we get R79 per month. There is a vast difference between R79 per month and R5 per month as given out by the Chief Minister of QwaQwa. Similar surveys were conducted in the maize-growing areas and the totals are as follows—R223,20 in 1970-’71 and R516,43 in 1975-’76. The percentage increase from 1970-’71 to 1975-’76 is 90,01% in the case of the wheat-growing area and 131,38% in the case of the maize-growing areas. What I find very illuminating is the fact that the consumer price index increase by 75,07% during the same period. The conclusion can therefore be drawn that farm labourers in the agricultural sector are financially better off in 1975-’76 than they were in 1970-’71, in spite of the fact that the economic climate has been very unfavourable during the past few years. That is in itself already a major achievement. It is also gratifying to be able to state in the present economic times that the farming sector is making a real contribution to the improvement of the general welfare of the Black population and is probably making a contribution to the narrowing of the wage gap between White and non-White as well.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank hon. members for their enthusiastic reception, to start with. I should like to tell the hon. member for Ladybrand—I heard the last part of his speech—that I am very glad indeed that somebody has at last raised the subject of the three million forgotten people, the Black farm workers in the White areas of South Africa. Last year I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that his entire report omitted any references at all to these people. After all, there are something like three million Black workers living on the farms and we did not read one word about them in the annual report of last year. I am afraid this year the position has repeated itself. If one reads through the latest departmental report, one finds that these people have been completely forgotten again. [Interjections.] As far as the department is concerned, they simply do not exist. There is a brief mention of the children that are being educated at farm schools in the report on Bantu education, but that is all. I therefore welcome the fact that the hon. member tells us that farm wages have risen and that the position of the farm worker is improving.

I now want to deal with a gaggle of Minister and Deputy Ministers. I am not impressed by the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, who, just before the dinner break, told us about the tremendous number of jobs that have been created for the Africans in the homelands. These jobs are mostly in the White areas and are, in fact, taken by Africans who come across to the border industries to fill them. Even if the hon. the Deputy Minister’s figures are not at all exaggerated, they fall very far short indeed of the minimum suggested by the Tomlinson Commission in 1955. If one takes a minimum of 50 000 new jobs per annum, outside of agriculture, for the homelands, one finds that one should have created something like well over a million jobs by now, because it is nearly 22 years since Tomlinson reported. And Tomlinson’s figures were a hopeless underestimate because his demographic picture was all wrong as has subsequently been proved by people like Prof. Sadie of the University of Stellenbosch.

The hon. the Deputy Minister told the hon. member of Orange Grove that his description of Thornhill was not correct, but I want to tell him that he himself makes promises about resettlement areas which turn out to be very far short of the truth. I would remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that he assured me, when I raised the fate of the unfortunate Mayen people, who were being moved from one area to another near Taung, that the area to which they were being moved was far bigger and far better than the area from which they had come. In reality it has turned out to be quite different. Those people find themselves in a waterlogged, mosquito-ridden area. There have been many cases of women being prosecuted because they have left the area because it was quite unbearable. The hon. the Minister promises me that he is finding new farms for those people but because of the shortage of cash it will have to wait. I say that people should not be moved in the first instance to new areas unless it is absolutely certain that at least equal ground, as far as value and area is concerned, has been given to them.

I now turn to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs who told us of all the thousands of houses that have been built in the urban areas of South Africa. He apparently bears out the statement in the annual report of the department that the department has pretty well caught up with the shortfall in housing. This, as I was trying to point out the other day, is absolute nonsense. There is a dreadful shortfall in practically every area.

I admitted that more than once.

The hon. the Deputy Minister told us of all the thousands of houses that have been built and I tell him that the shortfall is still appalling, that Soweto is fast becoming an indoor shanty town because of the terrible overcrowding, and that there are areas like Crossroads in Cape Town which are the result of no houses at all being built on a family basis in the Cape. Then there is the huge area of Winterveld, which is an enormous squatter area for everybody and anybody in the whole of the Vaal triangle, Pretoria and Johannesburg, who cannot find anywhere else to live. I do not agree with the statement that the department has pretty well caught up with the shortage.

I did not say that.

The department says that.

Why do you then argue with me?

Because your statement seems to bear out exactly what the department has said.

I now want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what he thinks of the statement made by the Secretary, no doubt with the approval of the hon. the Minister or his deputies, when he said before the Cillié Commission the other day that the department had deliberately obstructed the housing programme of the Johannesburg city council because the Johannesburg city council did not agree with the department’s policy of migratory labour and because the Johannesburg city council did not agree that urban Africans were temporary dwellers, but treated them as permanent dwellers. I think that is a most extraordinary admission for the department to make. In other words, it deliberately obstructed the housing programme of the largest urban area in South Africa. I say that is one of the major reasons why we have this shortfall today.

Now let me come to the star turns, the hon. the Minister himself and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. First of all, the hon. the Minister said I did not know what I was talking about when I quoted the fact that there was nothing in the estimates to show that there was a crash programme for housing. There is nothing in the estimates. Before I made my statement I looked at the estimates. I did not say his estimates, I said in the estimates.

It is under Community Development.

I have looked at the Vote of the Minister of Community Development. In that Vote you find that there is a R30 million programme for Whites, a R17 million programme for Asians, and a R122 million programme for Coloured people—that is a crash programme.

There is R8 million for Bantu plus what they have.

Yes, there is R8 million …

Plus what they have.

But that is nothing. That is not a crash programme.

It is R15 million altogether.

It is R15 million altogether, but we are giving R122 million to the Coloured people plus what they have. [Interjections.] I said there was nothing in the estimates for a crash programme, and there is nothing in the estimates for a crash programme.

All the hon. the Minister’s protestations and those of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education about the activities that the two of them engaged in shortly after the riots, as far as I am concerned, cut no ice whatsoever because in truth the riots escalated despite the efforts they tell us they made in secret behind the scene so that nobody knew these efforts were being made. Nobody was interested in the secret talks the hon. the Minister and his Deputy were having with Mr. X, Mr. Y or even, I might say, with Mr. M, who turns out, in fact, to be Mr. Mutwa who is the witch doctor and the favourite consultant of the hon. the Minister of Police.

No, it is not Mutwa.

Well, maybe he is not this hon. Minister’s favourite witch doctor, but he certainly is the favourite witch doctor of the hon. the Minister of Police. [Interjections.] Nobody was interested in those secret discussions, and I am very interested to find that this hon. Minister and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education are so adamant about the fact that the Afrikaans-medium issue could not have been the catalyst, the trigger point, the flashpoint that started off the riots because here I have a very interesting article. When the hon. the Minister was the honorary secretary of the Afrikaanse Kultuurraad, which is a subsidiary of the Broederbond, he urged all afrikaans parents, in 1943, to boycott the schools because of a language issue. [Interjections.]

He was an agitator.

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

Mr. Chairman, I said he “was” an agitator. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must withdraw the word.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we find it very amusing that the hon. member for Houghton loosed her usual tirade against the hon. the Minister and all the Deputy Ministers. What we found particularly interesting was the basis of her argument, because if she were to be honest with herself, she would have to say that she spoke a lot of nonsense here in her criticism of these people, unfounded nonsense based on the PRP’s point of view.

I want to begin by discussing her criticism of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. She spoke about the number of job opportunities being created in the homelands and said that they fell so far short of the estimates of the Tomlinson commission and that even the Tomlinson commission was very conservative in its estimates. However, I want to point out one thing to her, and it is very important. The hon. members of the PRP and the official Opposition fought the NP and the Government unremittingly when we tried to obtain their aid and co-operation for development in the Bantu homelands, development that was desperately needed—and we still regard it as being desperately needed—for the creation of job opportunities. [Interjections.] We were told that we were doing it for ideological purposes. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton referred to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the housing conditions in Soweto. Later in my speech I shall deal with the critical position as regards housing in all the Bantu residential areas in South Africa. As the hon. the Deputy Minister rightly said, Soweto is not the only place in South Africa. Soweto is not the only city in South Africa where we have housing problems. It is extremely unfair of her to criticize the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development in this way, because this is the crux of the matter. When the mobilization and the acquisition of funds for the establishment of badly needed housing facilities is at issue, they are the first to criticize us. Again in this vote the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North launched a tremendous tirade against the Government about the conditions in Soweto, and then he came up with the classic statement that we now wanted to increase the rents again. I ask, with tears in my eyes, how on earth one is to tackle the task of socio-economic upliftment of the Black people and do something positive about it if the people are constantly being told, as that Opposition does, that they are paying too much and that they do not have the means to pay more. [Interjections.] The hon. member referred to the hon. the Minister and spoke about a crash programme with regard to housing. She had better just reconcile herself to the fact that the socio-economic problems of plural South Africa are such that we cannot solve all our problems overnight by means of so-called crash programmes. She need only go and look—I shall repeat this ad nauseam—at the similar problems in America; she need only go and look at the report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders on the riots there, to see that although they came up with proposals for all kinds of crash programmes, they are still faced with exactly the same problems of chaotic socio-economic conditions in their ghettos. I have the documents here but time does not allow me to quote them. They were experiencing the same problems there, and that is a country whose financial resources are far greater than those of South Africa. One would have said that since the Negro population comprises a mere 12% of the total population, America would surely be able to launch crash programmes, with their vast economic resources, in order to solve all their problems, but to date they have not been able to do so.

In South Africa we are engaged in a fight to the death on a number of fronts. One is the military front. The hon. member for Houghton and her colleagues must take account of the fact that this year we have to spend 19% of our State expenditure on defence. If we had not had to spend it on that, we could have spent it on socio-economic upliftment projects, including housing. However, the Government has a responsibility towards the people in this respect. Being aware of the dangers of the military threat, we cannot be so crazy as to spend that money in any other way. I want to point out to the hon. member that in the present budget, in the votes of the Department, Rehoboth and Nama Relations, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of Transport, through which we subsidize non-remunerative transport, and the Department of Community Development for the purposes of housing for non-Whites, we make provision for an amount of altogether R1 129 330 000. This comprises 12,4% of the total budget. She should also take into account all the other items in the budget, items under the Department of Agriculture, the Railways Administration and items allocated to the provincial administrations, benefiting the non-White population of South Africa. Sir, it is of vital importance that we should be honest with each other on this point. If we look at the dangers threatening us in South Africa and if we look at the mirror image of the situations in South Africa, we see the reality of a pluralistic South Africa. We also see in that mirror—they cannot get away from this—the problem of the increasing numerical superiority of the Blacks as against the Whites. We also see in that mirror the momentum of development of the non-Whites—this is something which I want to come back to shortly. To me, the fact that the Opposition, including the official Opposition, have been so quiet and restful in this debate, indicates two things. Firstly it shows that they themselves are seeking a policy, and secondly it shows that they are beginning to acknowledge—it has gradually become possible to detect this in the present Parliamentary session—that they cannot get away from the factual realities of the plural society in South Africa, realities which we have been trying to drum into their heads for years.

We also see a further problem in the mirror to which I referred. We see in it the revolution of the awakening aspirations of the Black people. This year there are 3,5 million Black children at school. We Whites, the Government as well as the Opposition, must take cognizance of the revolution of aspirations among the Black people who are at school. In his analysis of the French Revolution, Alexis de Tocqueville, a very famous scholar, said that as people’s needs were satisfied, more and more needs arose. The Opposition had better reconcile itself to the fact that one can never check the revolution of aspirations among the non-White peoples—this is something we have already accepted. In the homelands and also in the developing complexes in our urban areas, our policy takes into account that revolution of awakening aspirations. Those aspirations are primarily and basically oriented towards practical, material things, and secondarily towards political matters.

The hon. Opposition concern themselves for the most part with the political side of this revolution; they do so for their own purposes. We do not ignore the political aspirations; we most certainly accommodate them. We seek to concern ourselves with the primary essence of those aspirations, and we need their help in that all those things cost us money. If we are to obtain that money we cannot have the kind of negative attitude they displayed again today by wanting to oppose every form of increase in rent. During the discussion of this vote last year I asked something which I again want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister, because this is a matter I feel strongly about. It is that we should take a penetrating look at the basis on which the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards are financed, because particularly when we consider the vast sums of money required for the socio-economic progress of the Black communities in our urban areas, I am convinced that the present basis of financing is inadequate. We shall have to obtain additional sources. In 1974-’75, in all 22 Bantu Administration Board areas, an amount of R144 million was spent on liquor and Bantu beer. Last year, in the area of the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board, an amount of R42 million was spent on liquor by the Black people. In view of the immense increase in the salaries of the Black people, I want to state categorically that we have reached the point at which the Government, with the aid of the Opposition, must demand that in view of their increased financial means, the Blacks should take greater responsibility upon themselves for their own progress and that the total responsibility should not rest on us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I could spend my entire ten minutes on the hon. member for Innesdal but I do not want to. I just want to tell him that the drinking which takes place in the townships is much encouraged by the officials there, to start with. Indeed, it is interesting that the first priority when the riots were over was to rebuild the beer halls rather than the schools which had been burnt down. I just want to remind the hon. member of that. These townships have what others and I call a “booze economy”. They rely on the amount of drink that is consumed in the townships for a very considerable portion of their revenue. The hon. member rightly said that materialistic things are very important among African people. That is the case in every section of the community, and more particularly when people are living on the breadline. I want to ask that hon. member if he thinks it is right that at this sensitive time in our history, the Government should have withdrawn the subsidies on bread and maize which are the two staples of the diet of the poorer section of the community and which together amount to about R42 million. I also want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks it is right that the rents of Soweto should have been put up at this critical moment. Those two items together, the subsidy plus the housing subsidy that should come but does not, because it has to be self-supporting, the West Rand Administrative Board …

We are subsidizing it up to 20% at the moment, even with the increase.

The rents must definitely not be increased at the present time. It is utterly mad to do so. When the township is just beginning to return to some sort of normality, up go the rentals and these people cannot afford it. Those three items together would be less than the cost of one of the submarines that the hon. the Minister of Defence is buying. I believe that if we want internal security our priority should not be a submarine; our priority should be housing and our priority should be subsidization of bread and maize. That is what I say about that situation.

I want to know whether I can possibly persuade the hon. the Minister to withdraw the directives which his department issued in December last year about the Xhosa’s who have now lost their South African citizenship as a result of Transkei becoming independent. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has any idea of the anxiety and distress that this is causing people of Transkeian origin in the cities such as Cape Town and Johannesburg. When the Transkei Bill was passed, the hon. the Minister said—

I want this Committee to judge how the hon. the Minister has carried out that undertaking. To my mind all the persons of Xhosa origin have obtained is anxiety and insecurity. What do these directives say? Every person who is of Xhosa origin, when going for his new reference book, in other words, if he has lost his reference book and asks for a duplicate, is not issued with a reference book but has to take out a temporary immigration permit. So, indeed, have youngsters of 16 when they reach the age at which they have to take out these documents. They are given temporary immigration permits, permits which allow them to stay in the area. Those permits are valid for six months at a time. They cost 50 cents each. Those people are given two years within which they have to obtain Transkeian passports. There are no more South African passports at all being issued to persons of Transkeian origin who live in the Republic and who were born in the Republic, people who have now been stripped of their South African citizenship. Those people have to go to the nearest Transkeian consulate or send to Umtata in order to obtain a Transkeian passport, a passport which, I might say, is not much good to them, because Transkei has not been recognized by any country in the world. Therefore those Transkeian passports are no good as travel documents.

Then, there is another hassle. These unfortunate people have to rush around to the British Embassy, to the American Consulate or whatever, in order to get special travel documents to allow them to travel despite their Transkeian passports. I want to know what special advantages all these lucky folk are enjoying as a result of the Transkei having become independent and of their having lost their citizenship. [Interjections.] If they are already working in South Africa, they have to have special stamps in their reference books relating back to the Transkei. If they are section 10(1)(a) or (b) or (c) Africans—that is those who were born in the area or who have been in the urban areas long enough and who have special privileges—a special Transkei stamp has to be put into their documents, and they are allowed to continue to work for an indefinite period for the employer presently employing them. I want to impress on the hon. the Minister, who does not seem to think that this matters, that there is a great deal of insecurity now among these people. They feel that at any moment they may be requested to leave the Republic. They do not know with any certainty whether or not they will be able to take up further employment.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister—just as I told this House two years ago—that Soweto is a tinder-box which could go up in flames at any time, and it just … [Interjections.] It just so happens that the Afrikaans language was the issue last time, but it could have been anything else. However, I warn the hon. the Minister and I warn this House that here is another potential flash-point, and if we add … [Interjections.]

Are you warning us?

Yes, I am, though I have had enough experience in this House to know that, unfortunately, warnings are never taken by the Government. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if measures are not taken to improve the general standard of living of Black people and if measures which are provocative continue to be introduced such as the removal of the subsidies on bread and maize, and the increase of the rents in Soweto, we are going to find ourselves confronted again with situations of unrest in this country. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister, at least this time, will take some heed of the warning. I know that the hon. the Minister says—and the hon. the Prime Minister has said it too—that they do not want to listen to White people talking about Blacks. I agree with that. Let them listen to the Black people talking about these things. We only have to read the editorials in the newspaper The World to see how much distress the whole issue of citizenship is causing the Africans in the urban areas. One only has to read the speeches made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Transkei to see how much distress is being caused to the Transkei by the citizenship issue.

I do not issue these warnings lightly. I tell hon. members that unless steps are taken to prevent the development of extreme tension in this country, we are in for further periods of unrest in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member has not proposed that my salary be reduced I am going to avail myself of the opportunity to put a few questions to her.

Perhaps I should have done that.

Is the hon. Deputy Minister jealous?

Yes, I am jealous. [Interjections.] I want to put a few questions to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member said that the withdrawal of the subsidies was disgraceful. The hon. member used to be a United Party supporter. Now I want to ask her something. Does she remember when she was still a United Party supporter, and the NP was endeavouring to bring about the abolition of the school feeding scheme for Whites, how the UP fought against it? The premise of the NP was that the people of South Africa should be capable of buying their own food, and that the State should not provide subsidized food. That is precisely what we are still doing today. We are working to ensure that the Black people of South Africa should be able to buy their own food, and that they need not be subsidized. [Interjections.] I want to tell those hon. members how we succeeded in doing so, and show them that we are doing so.

What about the farmers?

That hon. member could learn something about religion from our farmers, and that may straighten him out. [Interjections.] I want to quote to the hon. member a report which I have here in which mention is also made of the farmers—

For the Blacks this is an improvement of 8,3% as against 1,3% for the Whites, and surely this enables these people to buy food for themselves, to be able to take pride in paying out of their own pockets for what they enjoy and of not having to be subsidized by the State. In the same investigation it was disclosed that the Black people were now spending two and a half times more on meat than they were spending on maize and bread. Five years previously they had spent only one and a half times as much of their income on meat, and meat is not subsidized. The hon. member for Houghton said a moment ago that we were far short of the mark as far as the provision of employment in the homelands was concerned. There is one thing the hon. member did not take into account, namely the development which is taking place in the homelands and the border areas …

Ask her whether she still pays her people so little.

Yes, I wonder whether the hon. member would not tell us how much she now pays her people. [Interjections.] I think it is left-overs and overalls. [Interjections.] The one thing the hon. member does not take into account is the development programmes which are in progress in the homelands and in the border areas. She does not realize that these areas are developing their own momentum and that the work opportunities which are being created each year are increasing in geometrical progression. If we had succeeded, when the Tomlinson Commission brought out its report, in creating enough work opportunities for the work-seekers in the homelands, we would have succeeded, with the momentum which would have developed, in sucking the whole of Africa dry. I want to give the hon. member an example. The figures which I mentioned a moment ago in regard to spending relate only to the IDC. It does not affect the BIC, the Development Corporations or the Mining Corporation. Nor does it affect the homeland governments or the organizations of private people. I want to give the hon. member an example of the momentum which is developing. Let us consider the shares bought by the S.A. Bantu Trust in the BIC only—I am mentioning only the one body and I am not saying anything about the XDC and the Mining Corporation. Two years ago, in 1975, the share capital, i.e. the appropriation made by Parliament for the corporation, amounted to R39 million. The next year, in 1976-’77, it was R45 million and this year it is R52 million. This is an increase of 33% in two years’ time. The self-generated capital of the BIC, i.e. its return on its own revenue and the input of private people, amounted to R13 million two years ago; last year it amounted to R33 million and this year it is R61 million. This represents an increase of 369%. These are private investors who are investing their money in this organization. This strength has been developed by the corporation itself. Therefore we are undoubtedly heading deliberately and purposefully for the point where we will create employment for every work-seeker in the homelands. What is more: We shall go beyond that point to provide even better than that. I just want to point out another example. The fact of the matter is that in three years’ time the work opportunities which are annually available have doubled as a result of the activities of the Bantu Mining Corporation. I want to put a question to the hon. member. I want the hon. member and her henchmen to listen to this, because I want to test them. The hon. member for Innesdal said that the development which was brought about and which has now gained momentum was opposed by those hon. members. We know this. Now, however, she states that she is in favour of it.

No, it depends on the circumstances.

I now want to test her genuineness. The homelands have potential in respect of the four production factors—land, labour capital and management, as she knows very well. Twenty per cent of that potential, however, is not being utilized. The land and the labour is available, but the two things which are in short supply are capital and management. It is true that capital can be obtained if one has a good management and a good plan. Capital is therefore not the most important factor. Management is the most important factor. For a nation to develop requires all its people and particularly those who have managerial skills and talents. We are making an appeal to the White employers in the White areas of South Africa to release the Black entrepreneurs and potential Black entrepreneurs, as well as people from the homelands whom they have in their employ, so that they can return to the homelands. These people are the lifeblood of the homelands. They are the most important asset of the homelands. We are asking the industrialists to release those people. However, we are going one step further and we are asking the industrialist, the professional man, the dealer and everyone for that matter, not only to release such a person, but also to assist him, on the basis of the position of trust which has developed, in starting his own undertaking in the homelands. I want to point out one example. I read in the newspaper the other day of a mine which had three Black people who were engineers or were qualified in that direction. The mine is now going to appoint them as managers in White areas. That is wrong. The homelands have their own mines. Those three people ought to become managers in the homelands so that they may subsequently own mine houses themselves. I want to test that hon. member’s integrity and ask her whether she and the PRP will stand up with me here tonight to make an appeal to the entrepreneurs and the Whites in South Africa to help get those top Black people who are in White South Africa to the homelands.

You must leave it to the people themselves!

No. I am asking the hon. member whether she will propagate this and will counsel the industrialists to do this. This is the question I want to put to the PRP. If they do not want to propagate this positively and are not prepared to ask the White entrepreneurs in South Africa to return to the homelands the greatest asset which the Black people have, namely their entrepreneurs, so that they can develop their countries, they are not being honest when they say that they are in favour of homeland development.

I have a report here of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and do hon. members know what conclusion they arrive at? They allege that the most important asset of all the people is their own entrepreneurs, those people who have to develop their areas so that the development may be self-generated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister came forward with a very strange request, i.e. that he wishes to get rid of the top Bantu. He wants industrialists to chase them away … [Interjections.] How is one going to get rid of them? The problem is that we should have had more such top people, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister had done his duty, there would be more top Black people, not only for outside use, but also as reserves.

†We have now come to the end of a debate … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

… in which a motion has been moved to reduce the salary of the hon. the Minister and of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. If they had not deserved it last year through their actions, they surely deserve the reduction now as a result of what they said during this debate. For instance, they persisted with the attitude that the language medium of instruction at schools had nothing to do with the riots of June 1976. It is pitiful that they carry on like this, because it forces one to debate an issue which should rather not have been debated. The medium of instruction cannot be regarded as the sole reason. There were many other varied and important reasons for the riots, but the medium of instruction was undoubtedly the platform from which the riots were launched. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Education must accept the responsibility for that. Let us accept that behind every disturbance and every riot there must be an agitator. Can the hon. the Minister deny that they exploited this particular situation? The hon. the Minister knew, or should have known that the language medium was causing resentment. But the hon. the Minister and his deputy were either too incompetent to heed the warnings or were too arrogant. Which ever way one looks at it, a country cannot afford that type of Minister, because one is running a security risk with Ministers like that. We are only in the Opposition, yet we knew as early as November 1975 that resentment was being built up. I want to put the record straight in this regard by quoting from a letter from which the hon. member of Umhlanga quoted last year. This letter was written in November 1975 by an Inspector of Bantu Education. He wrote the following—

Not the Act—

He continues by saying—

This is what he wrote in November 1975. Now the hon. the Minister says that they did exactly that after the riots in June. But they should have heeded the warning earlier. This inspector ends off his letter by saying—

If an official of the department knew it and if we knew it, the hon. the Minister and his hon. Deputy Ministers cannot tell me that they were unaware of the resentment and of the explosive situation. I want to leave the matter for a moment, but history will prove that the hon. Ministers neglected their duty.

A few days ago the hon. the Prime Minister accused the Opposition parties of not wanting to accept the realities in South Africa. It is, however, not the Opposition parties who do not want to accept the realities in South Africa. Especially after this debate it is quite clear that it is hon. members on that side of the House who do not want to accept the realities. What is even worse. They dare not accept the realities of the South African situation, because if they should accept the realities, they would be forced to abandon the very basis of their policy. Let us look at some of the realities which we cannot ignore. The first is one which hon. members on the other side of the House are very proud of, viz. the fact that in South Africa there is a Government which has been in power for 30 odd years. Except for the first five years of its being in power, the Government has enjoyed a very comfortable majority and therefore their hands were free to do what they wanted to. What is the reality in spite of all these favourable factors? At this stage, after 30 years, we find that the Government still has to devise a policy, let alone implement it, a policy to cater for all the Black communities which exist in reality in South Africa. After 30 years of uninterrupted rule they yet have to find a formula to normalize Black-White relationship in the urban areas. They at least have a theoretical policy in order to normalize the relationship in the Bantu areas, but in respect to the urban areas they have not even yet found a formula to normalize the relationships so that there will be no fear of domination by one group over the other. If there are two factors which demonstrated this clearly, it is the independence of the Transkei and the riots which took place last year. On 26 October 1976 the NP policy as far as the Transkei is concerned, reached its logical conclusion. It became a reality; it reached the end of the road, and there was nothing more that could be offered, because the last trump card had been played. In practice the Transkei had therefore been liberated in a NP fashion. But we all know that there are still thousands of Transkeians living outside the area permanently.

Millions.

Yes, millions. Here in the Cape Peninsula the majority of the urban Africans are Xhosas. Basically they are Ciskeians and Transkeians. What happened when the riots took place, especially the December riots in Nyanga and the disturbances at schools? We found that whether a Xhosa was a Transkeian or a Ciskeian, whether he was a liberated person in terms of the NP policy or whether he was someone yet to be liberated, they participated in the riots with equal enthusiasm. To put it in other words: The agitators were equally successful to get them to participate. This is the reality which the NP should face up to, because this is the situation today. They have played their last trump card and it has failed. The NP has promised the people of South Africa security and they have propagated: “Stem Nasionaal vir sekuriteit.” The people have been doing so for 30 years, and has the Government indeed been giving the people security? [Interjections.] No. The Government will only be able to give it once they accept the realities of South Africa: the permanence of the urban African, the right to freehold title, to undisturbed family life and to exercising of real political rights where one lives. Only then will they start accepting the realities in South Africa. The NP has at least produced one positive result in 30 years and has spent millions of rand to prove it, namely how not to solve the problem. I think we should be grateful to them for that, because that is at least one problem they have already eliminated. Why is this the situation? It is so because right from the beginning the Government has oversimplified the whole situation in South Africa. They looked at the South African scene and the only reality they saw was that there were different people belonging to different nations and decided to draw some lines. For them it was merely a geographical problem they had to solve. The intention was that everyone should have their own homeland, that everyone should be independent and that they would all live happily together ever after. But this is the mistake they have made. They have never come to realize that we are struggling with the problem of race relations and that we will always have this problem with us. It is something one will have to work at continuously. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that we will have to accept realities, but then we must accept all the realities of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am now going to reply in sequence to the hon. members who spoke after the last time I participated in the debate. I shall reply to those points which were put to me. Of course the Deputy Ministers have replied to many aspects already, and I shall not repeat what they have already dealt with so effectively. Of course other members on this side, besides the Deputy Ministers, also made useful contributions to this debate, and I should like to thank them sincerely for doing so. I also want to say a few words about the debate as a whole. [Interjections.] I think that priest should rather leave if he cannot behave in a quiet manner. This is almost the 17th year—I do not know precisely how many debates there have been—that I have been directly involved in the debate on this Vote, first as Deputy Minister and then as Minister.

It is about time you retired.

That hon. member will not be in this Parliament for 17 years. So he may as well keep quiet. This is already the 11th year which I have been in charge of this Vote as Minister. I want to tell hon. members opposite, and hon. members on this side, that I cannot remember a time during the past five or six years—of course I cannot remember each of the 17 years all that well—when we debated matters in such a relatively—I must stress the word relatively—calm manner as we did this year, and this was not due only to the fact that the Opposition is weaker. On the contrary. I think the Opposition is displaying a far more competitive spirit, for there are three Opposition Parties sitting here, and the one wants to outdo the other. I think the work which we as a department and the Government are doing in regard to Bantu affairs, and the way in which we are doing it, was also a very important contributory factor.

I want to begin with the hon. member for Griqualand East. He put a few questions to me this afternoon. I want to give him the facts. He asked a question about the money which is available for land purchases in the vicinity of Stutterheim and he also asked how much would be spent in the residential areas. In the same breath the hon. member also asked why more valuations were not being made and why the valuations were not being made more rapidly. The valuations of the properties are requested directly from the Adjustment Committee in the case of the urban and residential areas, and in the case of agricultural areas of course from the department of my colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Valuations are arranged according to need and in the light of the realities of purchase and payment. It would not be a good thing, nor would it be sensible, to make a great many valuations which would then have to wait a long time before being disposed of. That is why a balance is maintained between the making of valuations and the disposal thereof, in other words the payments.

This is only being done in the residential area. Nothing is being done for the farmers.

We are buying from both.

That is not true.

The hon. member may have another turn to speak. He did not even utilize all the time at his disposal when he spoke, and is now putting questions to me which he should have put then. I want to furnish the hon. member with the figures in which he is interested now. Is he interested? Of course the figures are also here in the estimates of expenditure.

In the case of the work of the Adjustment Committee, i.e. within the Transkei towns, we hope to spend R5 million but I cannot give any guarantee tonight that we shall spend a certain amount of money within the next 11 months or so. How can we say that? It depends on negotiations with people, their reactions, etc. It depends on all kinds of factors which are indeterminable because of the human element involved. However, that is the estimate. Then there is still the possibility of revenue which the Adjustment Committee itself is able to acquire. I do not know how much that will be. That is the lap of the future. If there are larger farms in the residential areas or municipalities, for example Port St. Johns, of, say, more than 10 ha, that land will be bought out, not with the funds of the Adjustment Committee but with the R50 million which, as is set out in the estimates of expenditure, is intended for the purchase of farms. I do not know how many such purchases will be made in the course of this year. We shall have to allow ourselves to be guided by the urgency of a case. We adhere to a priority list. In any event, these are the statistics the hon. member wanted.

The hon. member also asked questions about Stutterheim. Once again I can guarantee nothing because I do not know how long the negotiations with the people there will take. However, we hope that about R1,5 million will be available for land purchases in the Stutterheim area. It may be a little more or a little less. What one saves in one area one can utilize elsewhere. In respect of this matter I cannot of course tell the hon. member 11 months in advance precisely how much everything will cost. I am simply giving an indication of how everything ought to take place.

Today the hon. member gnawed at a few mouldy old bones, bones which are a year old.

He likes doing it!

It occurred in February.

As the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs said, he seems to like mouldy bones. Obviously he had no points to raise in this debate.

Reply to my question.

So he gnawed on the old Port St. Johns bone again. The hon. member would be well advised to read the two speeches which I made on Port St. Johns last year again. I have spoken on Port St. Johns on two different occasions. I spoke about it at length and in detail, and held absolutely nothing back.

You said nothing.

What I was unable to tell him last year, I told him this year. I am referring to the valuation …

Reply to my questions on that matter.

Mr. Chairman, could you please help me?

Order! The hon. member should not keep up a running commentary.

Sir, I do not want to appeal to the Chair unnecessarily, but honestly …

Confine yourself to the facts!

… but I cannot argue against rudeness. It is very difficult.

You cannot even talk to yourself!

That hon. member cannot even pronounce the word. Mr. Chairman, as I have said, I replied to that matter in great detail last year. The then Deputy Minister—at present the Minister of Water Affairs—also replied to it in full at the time. Now the hon. member comes here and asks questions about it again. The only new bone which he introduced was the story of the R150 000 bribe money which was allegedly involved. The hon. member ought to know that the hon. the Prime Minister, at my request and at the request of the then Deputy Minister who has been so much maligned concerning this matter, left the matter in the hands of the police. If the police find that someone acted erroneously, they can apprehend him, whoever he may be. The police are at present investigating the case. I can do nothing further about it. I, on my part, have made all the files which they may require available. They can have all the particulars they want. They will simply have to investigate the matter now.

What has happened so far?

Does the hon. member want the Police to investigate the matter in five minutes?

You know all the facts!

The police are investigating the matter, and I shall wait until the police have unravelled the case. The hon. member will probably believe them rather than he would me.

But it has already been two months.

No, I do not know. Ask the people from the Department of Justice about that. The police are not my people. Ask them what progress they have made. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South discussed the same matter. Consequently I have replied to his question as well.

I am sorry that I overlooked two little points this afternoon which the hon. member for Edenvale raised earlier. I should now like to reply to them briefly and succinctly. The hon. member referred to something which is referred to in the report, viz. that contact has been made, collectively, with the business world, the public sector. Yes, we have. It is a task which was specially entrusted to a senior deputy secretary of the department and he has already had meetings with these people in various ways. We hope that it is possible in this way to make good contact and that it will have good reciprocal results, of which we will be able to inform them and also which they will be able to propose or communicate to us. We shall try to carry this matter through and to keep it going. The hon. member also asked about the zoning of Alice and other towns and wanted to know how things were going there. Alice and all the towns of the Transkei have already been zoned, as the hon. member knows. This is the task of the Adjustment Committee. In principle this committee will therefore deal with Alice, which is situated in the Transkei, in the same way as the Transkei towns which have been zoned. The White Paper is also applicable to those people as if they were inside the Transkei. My colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs, replied very effectively to the hon. member on the so-called dissatisfaction of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, and therefore I need not reply to that any further.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Welkom on the very constructive speech which he made this afternoon on the contribution of the Bantu in the mining industry of South Africa and also on the officials of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards in their areas.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove was, I think, extensively replied to by the hon. the Deputy Minister concerned, especially with regard to Thornhill. I want to tell that hon. member that he is a comparatively young member of this House and therefore it would be well for him if he read up some old debates. In the debates with regard to the Ciskei he will find the name Dimbaza. What has been said about Dimbaza some years ago … The priest is nodding his head; he knows about it …

He is an hon. member.

The hon. priest will never hear about Dimbaza again.

Order! The hon. the Minister must refer to the hon. member as the hon. member for Pinelands.

I shall withdraw “the hon. Priest” and say “the hon. member”.

†The hon. member and other hon. members too can very fruitfully read up what was said here by many an hon. member about Dimbaza. Well, we never hear about Dimbaza any more.

Do you know why?

It is off the record.

Why is it off the record?

Why? Because it does not serve their purposes any more. We have managed what we said we would do about Dimbaza, namely to make it a proper town where people could live properly. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Chairman, please help me. Quite a few years ago we discussed another place, a place which at that time was called by its old name, viz. the old farm Morsgat. Its real name is Madikwe. Hon. members will remember how the hon. member for Houghton, in her halting Afrikaans, still made a mistake with the difficult word “Morsgat”. She made an awful slip of the tongue, one I would not dare repeat. [Interjections.] I shall have to tell it to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in private. Look at her blushing! She remembers it after all this time. The hon. member really has a good memory. Even though she does not always have a conscience, she still has a good memory. [Interjections.] There is another name. Where is Madikwe now? Where is Morsgat? What happened to the name Limehill? There was a terrible outcry in this House over Limehill.

It is the charge sheet against the NP.

Oh, that hon. member should rather concern himself about his constituency. That is what he should do. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member who spoke about Thornhill …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the hon. the Deputy Minister has already pointed out that these were not people who had an abundance of employment opportunities where they came from. It was their dependants who moved. These days the bread-winners are for the most part working elsewhere. The hon. the Deputy Minister correctly pointed out that they are now closer to work opportunities than they were before.

The hon. member also asked me about Queenstown and Queensdale. Queensdale is the Bantu township and now falls under the Transkei, owing to the incorporation of Glen Grey. If there are Xhosa who do not want to be citizens of the Transkei and who do not want to go to live in Queensdale, township amenities can be provided for them in Ciskei territory. It is not very far from Queenstown. It is by no means an insurmountable problem. It can be solved quite effectively.

I want to thank the hon. member for Marico for his valuable contribution on migrant labour. The hon. member for Meyerton drew a good, and a very instructive, comparison between housing matters in this country and those in certain foreign countries. I believe it is a very good thing that such comparisons should be drawn. Relatively speaking it was a good comparison.

One aspect of the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has already been replied to adequately. The hon. member asked for increased land ownership in the tribal areas in the Bantu homelands. This has already been replied to by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. Its importance has already been indicated. However, the hon. member must realize that it is basically the homeland Governments that have the power to make the decisions affecting those territories. He should not come and complain to us. Nor should he ask me to introduce new systems of land tenure, over the heads of the homeland Governments, in their tribal areas. The homeland Governments are empowered to make the decisions on those matters. True to their traditions, they shall do so. I pointed this out earlier this afternoon.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West made a useful contribution by referring to the importance of the process or urbanization in the Bantu homelands, what bearing it has on decentralization, and so on. The hon. member also indicated on what a large scale it is already taking place.

The hon. member for False Bay spoke about the squatters. These days it is no easy matter, particularly not in the Western Cape. The hon. member knows that there are certain statutory deficiencies in regard to this matter. It has already been indicated to what extent the existing legislation ought to be improved in order to eliminate the existing deficiencies. Of course I am in agreement with the hon. member when he says that the surplus Black people cannot, after all, remain living here in the Western Cape, particularly not when the matter is seen in the light of the Government’s well-known policy of giving preference to the Coloureds in the Western Cape. In this regard I want to make a very serious appeal again this evening, to employers in the Western Cape as well. If employers are inspired and remain inspired, as they initially were—I want to give them credit for that—to seek and find Coloured employees, we shall show a far greater improvement in this matter, and squatting would not increase at the rate it is increasing here in the Western Cape either. A great obligation rests on employers to give preference to Coloured employees.

A second factor which is very important is that employers should ensure that, as far as Bantu are concerned, they employ only Bantu who may legally be in their employ. They should also register their Bantu employees. I think hon. members would be astounded to hear how many employers in the Western Cape are committing an offence in this regard, viz. by failing to employ lawful employees and to register them properly.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked a few questions on the development of the homeland policy. He wanted to know whether other homelands are still going to become independent, which homelands would do so, what the time-table for that process was, and what homelands did not want independence. I want to tell that hon. member that we do not draw up a schedule for these things. Even though they scoff at me for having been a schoolmaster, and even though my one Deputy Minister was also a schoolmaster—I am sorry that that hon. member had not been a schoolmaster too, for then he would have been a better member of Parliament—we do not draw up a time-table for these things; we do not hold a roll-call.

Do not be so childish! What are the expectations …

Now I am being childish. There is no one who can go round in circles better than that hon. member. The smaller the egg on which he is dancing, the more he dances on it. Even before I can reply to him, he is rectifying his own question, and phrasing it better than a moment ago. In his speech the hon. member did not phrase it as he has now done.

Do you want me to read to you what I said?

The hon. member is really terribly sensitive, far more sensitive than the hon. member for Houghton. He can take far less punishment than she can. My reply to the question of the hon. member is that we do not draw up a time-table. We stated expressly, and all the Bantu homelands are aware of this, that if they want to become independent they will have to liaise with us and notify us formally of their intention so that we can start discussing the matter. The Transkei was dealt with in this way, and we have already made a great deal of progress with Bophuthatswana. Only this morning we held a long discussion in that regard with the representatives of Bophuthatswana. Bophuthatswana is the next homeland which is going to become independent. I do not know what other homelands there are that want to become independent. Formally I do not know yet. We have heard that it is being discussed in Lebowa, but I do not think it was serious. I think there is more and more talk in the Ciskei about independence, but I do not for one moment want to say that the Ciskei will be the next homeland to become independent. One can never know which homeland will be next. However, the Transkei has been disposed of, and Bophuthatswana is very actively on its way to independence. It wants to become independent on 6 December. Of course we are not forcing any homeland to do so, because it is not in accordance with our policy of self-determination. If they do not want full independence, we are not going to force them into it. We shall help them on the road to independence, for it is logical that they must receive assistance in terms of the policy. The hon. member also referred to elections. In the case of the Transkei they held an election last year. It involved their constitutional development.

In Bophuthatswana there is going to be an election prior to December of this year. It will be held in August or September, and then the question of independence will of course be put to the electorate. It is not a requirement, but I agree with the hon. member that it is a good thing that the people are afforded an opportunity to express their opinion on the matter in an election. This is therefore going to be done in Bophuthatswana as well.

The hon. member referred to the need for the boundaries to be made known. Of course the boundaries should be made known. Has the hon. member already forgotten the Status of the Transkei Act of last year, with its schedule? In the Status of Bophuthatswana Act, which we shall pass this year, there will also be an indication of what boundaries it refers to.

Mr. Chairman, the question which I put to the hon. the Minister was what he was doing to make certain that when a territory becomes independent, it is satisfied with the boundaries.

That was the hon. member’s second question. I made a note of it, and I shall therefore deal with it straight away. In the Transkei Act it is laid down, and in the Bophuthatswana Act it will probably be laid down as well, what the boundaries of the homeland are and what farms still have to be purchased. Once the farms have been purchased by the Bantu Trust and they have been prepared for this purpose, they will be handed over to that homeland Government. This was done in the case of the Transkei, and it will also be done in the case of Bophuthatswana. In other words, all the land which we still have to purchase in terms of the 1936 Act for a homeland approaching its independence is stated in a list attached to the Act, or in an agreement.

Actually it is listed in an agreement, and not in the Act. In the Act reference is made to the boundaries of the districts, but the farms which still have to be purchased are listed in an accompanying agreement, which is properly signed beforehand. Proper farm numbers and boundaries are indicated in such a list so that the people can know precisely where they stand. This is what we are committing ourselves to do, viz. to purchase that land. It is being done in this way. There is no doubt about that. There is no open question. The hon. member referred to all kinds of agreements. I shall return in a moment to the question of land. The hon. member also referred to military matters. Military agreements are being concluded. The draft of the military agreements with Bophuthatswana has already been finalized. In due course hon. members will see those drafts. This was the case with the Transkei. Last year, in this House, I referred to the case of the Transkei. Afterwards it was published in the Gazette.

The hon. member referred to the additional land which is always asked for and said that after independence Chief Minister Matanzima asked for more land, and said that Bophuthatswana would also ask for more land. Show me one Black leader in Africa who does not ask for more land than he has. It is as inherent in them as one can possibly imagine. All of them want more land. Lesotho, which has absolutely nothing to do with us, imagines that it can get hold of the entire Free State, and is in fact asking for it. Should we take fright now, and lose our heads? We simply say: “So what?” I almost mentioned the name of a small country, but for the sake of peace I shall rather not do so. However, Lesotho is very well known for this. Surely we are not answerable for that. Should we now conclude an agreement with them?

Dr. Verwoerd said that the homelands would receive their historic land.

No. The hon. member should really not try that tack now. Does the hon. member wish to imply that Dr. Verwoerd promised Lesotho the so-called “conquered territory” of the Free State? … Now he is sitting there with his mouth full of teeth. Dr. Verwoerd did not do that.

Dr. Verwoerd referred to the homelands, not to Lesotho.

Dr. Verwoerd did not promise them historic land, as the hon. member has said. Each of them have their own interpretation of “historic land”.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked me whether a Black person could buy a farm in the homeland. The reply is that where farms are surveyed as single farms, one Black person may purchase from another Black person. However, not all the homelands have been surveyed into farms as in the case of the White rural areas. The hon. member ought to know that. The homelands consist primarily of tribal territories. In Natal and certain other parts, such as at Thaba ’Nchu, for example, there are quite a large number of loose farms that have been surveyed. These are frequently farms which used to belong to Whites and were then sold. Such farms may be transferred from one individual to another. However, not all the farms are owned by individuals; many of the farms were taken over by the tribes. The farms may be sold. I explained yesterday afternoon that it is not our policy and standpoint that the tribal areas in the homelands should be subdivided into individual farms.

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister be prepared to allow a Black person to purchase a White farm in an area such as Estcourt for example, where certain areas have been earmarked for Blacks in the so-called lowlands area?

The best reply I can give to the hon. member is that a few months ago we approved of a Black person purchasing a farm from a White person in the Peddie district because it was situated within the future released area [Interjections.] There you now have a precedent. I just want to tell the hon. member that I deny once and for all what he said in respect of the Deputy Minister Treuruicht, i.e. that the Deputy Minister “stirs up the churches”, as he put it. If there is anyone who can be the judge of that, it is I. I find myself in the most intimate and closest co-operation with the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, and I say that that statement is absolutely untrue. I want to add that the Deputy Minister is fortunately not a bigot either.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member also asked me whether there was a master plan for a large …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Is “bigot” parliamentary? [Interjections.]

May I ask who in this House I called a bigot?

The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education.

One should not try to wear any shoes you see lying around. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown asked … I shall skip this point because he does not want to listen to me. For the information of this House I just want to say that for Durban and its environs a plan has been drawn up for the South African Bantu Trust as far as housing in four areas is concerned, viz. Edendale, Clermont, Umlazi, etc. The housing in those areas will cost approximately R7 million. I see that the hon. member is not interested in this at all and that he merely asked the question because he wanted a turn to speak.

I was grateful for the explanation given by the hon. member for Smithfield of the finances of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. In the same way I am grateful to the hon. member for Innesdal who also referred to them. These hon. members raised very important matters, and I am very pleased that they drew our attention to these matters. I should like to go into the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Smithfield in a little more detail, and refer to the hon. member for Innesdal in the same breath. That hon. member will probably be pleased to hear that we are already looking into the basis and system of financing of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. We are examining this matter thoroughly because it is of particular importance. The hon. member was therefore right on target with what he did about it.

I just want to emphasize again here what I have already said on various occasions and which hon. members on this side of the House have also said before, viz. that we must bear in mind that, in regard to the Bantu who are in our White areas, it is wrong to expect all financing for amenities, such as housing, transportation, recreation and hospitalization, to be the duty of the authorities only. That is wrong. The Bantu come here to work in their own interests, and the employer utilizes those Bantu in his own interests. The authorities are here to serve the interests of all. Therefore I say that the provision of amenities, from housing down to roads, is the duty of all three these bodies: the employer, the employee and the authorities. The sooner employers, employees and authorities come to an understanding in this regard, the better it will be and the greater our progress will be. This is to an increasing extent the basis on which we are trying to work and on which we are proceeding. I also know that Deputy Minister Cruywagen is over-exerting himself to bring this about, and I wish him everything of the best. Hon. members must lend their assistance as well, for it cannot be denied that this is the correct basis on which we should proceed.

The Urban Foundation is also helping.

Yes, the Urban Foundation is also helping; that is completely correct. As the Deputy Minister said, we are very interested in their assistance. For the rest, the hon. member for Innesdal gave a very effective exposition of the reality of our plural population, and hon. members, particularly hon. members on the opposite side of this House, would do well to ponder what he said.

The hon. member for Albany referred here to the work-shy, to Black people who do not want to work. I am in complete agreement with that hon. member. I think he made a very valid point in that regard, and I am giving attention to it. Of course it is no easy matter to involve a work-shy person in a scheme or in a system where he has to be taught to work and has to be orientated to develop a positive outlook on life and become a person who earns his own money. That is not an easy task. It is a social and psychological problem with which one is confronted. Nevertheless it is something which we should most certainly strive to achieve.

Then, too, I wish to thank the hon. member for Ladybrand for his contribution on Bantu wages.

†And now, for the umpteenth time, the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton had a quarrel with the Deputy Minister in connection with housing. I leave that quarrel to them. It seems to me that they both enjoy the quarrel.

I do not enjoy it very much. I wish I had somebody else to quarrel with.

Do not pick your wife.

*I should like to tell the hon. member that she was wrong again tonight. I have never heard the hon. member make so many incorrect statements as she has recently been doing. It seems to me the remark made this afternoon was a valid one. She is indeed getting old.

You too.

But I am not wrong. I am getting older, but I am not wrong. Sir, she is still wrong about the housing funds, which she spoke about earlier this afternoon. Then the hon. member criticized the Secretary for what he had allegedly said about the Cillié Commission. I just want to tell the hon. member that she of course relies on any kind of story. Even if she reads something upside down in the Rand Daily Mail, she believes it. She believes anything, wherever she gets it from. The hon. member would do well to read up in the report what the Secretary said. I take it that justice will be done to him there.

What report?

The Cillié Commission report.

You will have to wait for the report.

The hon. member shall have to wait for that report to see properly what the Secretary of the department said. The Secretary of the department knows about these matters ten times more than the hon. member will ever know.

*The hon. member for Houghton was at her wits’ end, beyond help and confused today, particularly this evening. She scratched and scrambled about, and the second time she spoke she did not even utilize all the time available to her. I just want to tell the hon. member that she achieved nothing by discussing the citizens of the Transkei and the problems in that regard. She only aggravates matters by going about gossiping about such matters, gleaning whatever she can and trying to drag it across the floor of this House as point of controversy. The hon. member should leave those Transkeian citizens alone. Let them be. She must stop interfering with them. We have formal and proper contact with the Transkeian Government and we have consultation with them and they with us. If the hon. member wishes to further this cause, she should keep her hands off it. But she does not want to further the cause; she only wants to further herself. That is what she wants to do. The hon. member must please take my words to heart. In the interests of our country and the Transkei, of every citizen of the Transkei, of every Xhosa-speaking person, I am interested in getting matters straight, not in bedevilling matters further. That is what the hon. member is very good at doing. The same applies in respect of the expression which the hon. member used here today, “the potential flash-point” to which she referred. It is terminology such as that which falls on fertile soil when it reaches the ears of people who are inclined towards incitement and agitation. The more they speak about these things, the more they encourage people who are susceptible to it.

I want to conclude with the hon. member for Durban Central. I want to tell him as a former teacher that he knows very little about the education of the Bantu. It would pay him to read a little more about it and to study these things in depth.

In what way am I wrong?

He would do well to read more about it. The hon. member referred to the language medium issue. We shall have to wait for that report to see what the judge has to say about the language medium issue. Let me tell the hon. member now that what Deputy Minister Treuruicht said yesterday in regard to that matter was entirely correct, namely that the language medium issue was a subterfuge, a peg on which insurrectionaries and communist-inspired agitators could hang their agitation. They merely used it as a pretext, as the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly indicated yesterday. [Interjections.] We are constantly negotiating with them. The question of the medium was only raised in one area in Soweto in which there was dissatisfaction, and in that regard the department negotiated with those people but they dragged their feet and kept the department on a string about this matter. Why were there not such things in other parts of the country as well? The hon. member was very unfair in his statements on this matter. He referred to the letter of an inspector on regulations. That argument of his is not relevant at all, whether it is the letter of an inspector or not. It was not necessary for us to change the regulations last year in order to rectify the question of the medium. We merely issued a statement and sent out a circular to inform everyone as to the procedure.

What did you change in June?

The hon. member also spoke about the realities of our policy and then uttered a few vague generalities. However, what he said was an extreme misrepresentation in regard to our policy when he tried to imply that we were now, after 30 years, still revising matters. Our policy is not a static policy. Never! He need only go back to the year 1948, to the year long before he came to this Parliament, to see how our policy is growing dynamically and advancing. The eyes of the hon. member would then be opened. However, I cannot blame the hon. member very much for not understanding that our policy is a growing, dynamic policy, because he is used to the policy of the UP, which is like a stagnant pool of water.

That is why you are trying to take it over all the time.

The hon. member for Durban Central is one of the best examples I have ever seen of a politician who is perfectly capable of convincing himself. Yet he is only able to convince himself, and stated his case very unconvincingly here.

I have now dealt with all the points, and I want to thank hon. members for their participation in this debate. I want to conclude with one prediction, which is that the hon. member for Griqualand East will come forward with a lot of questions, on Port St. Johns and the purchase of properties there next year too.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30: Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and R. J. Lorimer.

Noes—82: Albertyn, J. T.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha. S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G, C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J.; (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van der Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Amendment negatived.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 7 and S.W.A. Vote No. 2.—“Bantu Education”:

Mr. Chairman, may I just point out to the Committee that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education will deal with this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour.

We have now come to the very important Bantu Education Vote. I want to begin by conveying my congratulations to the Secretary and to the department on this interesting and comprehensive report which they had ready in time for this debate. Once again one appreciates the dedication of the officials in this field. We are obviously grateful for the measure of progress that has been made in the past year, in spite of all the major problems in the field of Bantu education, problems which are mentioned in the annual report once again. I shall come back later to the question of the riots and the effect this has had on Bantu education. In this connection I want to express my appreciation to the department for the special arrangements that were made to enable those students who could not sit for their examinations last year to sit for them in February this year.

Furthermore, I want to express my particular appreciation for the establishment of the centres for adult education, for the provision of in-service training in industry, for the establishment of experimental aid classes for mentally retarded children, and also for the first steps towards compulsory education. In this connection I have also noted with appreciation the provision of free class-books and text-books. The only pity is that these things did not come much sooner.

Furthermore, I have noted with appreciation the attempts to eliminate double shifts. In this connection I just want to say that I believe it to be essential that the department give attention to the whole problem of pre-school teaching for children.

It is quite clear that this report reveals a number of fundamental shortcomings in the system of Bantu education. As regards the universities, in the first place, while one is grateful for the fact that a Black principal has been appointed at one of these Black universities, it is also true, in my opinion, that a similar step should long since have been considered in the case of the other two universities. In spite of the change that has been made in the composition of the university council, as well as the abolition of the advisory council and the advisory Senate, it remains a tragedy that the salaries of Black lecturers at the Black universities still compare unfavourably with those of White lecturers. When one considers that an amount of less than R200 000 would be required to close that gap between the salaries, it is completely incomprehensible that we should have to keep pleading here for steps to be taken to bring about parity. Further to this, I want to say that it is very clear, too, that the time has come for us to give very serious consideration to the question of whether the open universities should not be allowed to admit Black students without special permission from the Minister, and whether provision should not also be made for the admission of White students to the Black universities, even if only on a post-graduate basis for the present.

For what purpose?

I shall come to that later. It is quite clear that there are serious shortcomings in respect of the training of teachers. I am referring to the remark on page 4 of the report, where it is emphasized that 1 500 extra teachers have to be trained every year. My question in this connection is whether that training can in fact keep pace with the projected increase in the number of pupils. When we look at the actual numbers of pupils, it is an open question to me whether that objective can be achieved. It is quite clear that we shall have to give serious attention to the phenomenon of a decrease in the number of pupils. The decrease in the number of pupils between Std. 1 and Std. 2, in the White areas as well as the homelands—in the so-called White areas it is a drop from 14,4% to 10,97%—is indeed too disquieting to be accepted. I am very well aware of the fact that the department is definitely doing everything in its power to combat that phenomenon. That is why I referred to the emphasis that should be placed on the pre-school training of the child. It has been proved more than once that the extremely high drop-out rate, especially during the first few years at school, is mainly due to the fact that the child is unable to follow the teacher properly. It is simply a question of language and terminology.

Furthermore, it is also clear that the extremely high dropout rate between Std. 6 and Std. 7—according to particulars in the report—also deserves serious attention. Generally speaking, it simply means that, measured against the total intake of the schools, the number of pupils who make it to matric is still far too small. This number constitutes only 0,24% of the total number of pupils enrolled outside the homelands. Inside the homelands the figure is only 0,29%. It is clear that unless that percentage is considerably increased in the near future, we cannot speak of an effective system of Bantu education.

The same factors apply to the question of classroom accommodation. This is a problem which is mentioned in the report. According to my calculations, it means that outside the homelands, where there are 1 433 000 pupils, there are only 23 686 classrooms available. This amounts to an average of more than 60 pupils per classroom. Inside the homelands, the average is more than 59 pupils per classroom. These are facts that appear in the report, and which only go to prove that there is a tremendous need for a far-sighted policy, a policy in which urgent attention ought to be given to this problem.

The same applies to the question of double shifts and the platoon system. There are at least 2 644 schools outside the homelands in which the system of double shifts is being used at this stage. The number of pupils involved in this is at least 360 000. Inside the homelands there are at least 3 000 schools to which the system of double shifts is applicable. The total number of pupils at the schools concerned is 551 923. I shall not comment on the platoon system. It seems to me that there are serious deficiencies in this field, deficiencies to which the department will have to give attention.

I also want to take this opportunity of discussing the system of Bantu education and the problems which were caused by the events that took place last year, as from 16 June 1976. Unlike the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, I do not want to disregard the question of the medium of instruction as a possible contributory cause of the riots that took place. These two hon. gentlemen have already suggested that the riots were only due to communist agitation and to people who approached the matter from that point of view. We are told not to anticipate the report of the Cillié Commission. However, this is precisely what was done by the hon. the Minister, and on Friday by the hon. the Deputy Minister as well. They made it clear that the riots were not caused by the question of the medium of instruction, but by this, that and the other.

You said that had been the cause.

I am sorry, but then the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to know better than to give us replies which he is not able to prove at this stage.

I shall reply to the hon. member.

Thank you. The hon. the Deputy Minister will have to be patient, because I do not want to approach the problem from that negative point of view. The events of last year forced Us to reexamine the whole system of Bantu education within the framework of the overall policy that is being pursued in respect of the Bantu. Allow me to say at once that one of the problems we have with Bantu education is that from the point of view of the Black man himself, it got off to a bad start. When the Bantu Education Bill was piloted through Parliament, remarks were made, unfortunately, that made an indelible impression on the mind of the Black man. We may deny it if we like, but every Black teacher and every right-thinking Black man with whom I have spoken has adopted a negative attitude towards the whole concept of Bantu education because of the way that system was motivated in this House and to the public. Even if we were able today, as we are, to tell the people that the syllabi are the same and so forth, this cannot wipe out the suspicion that was felt at the beginning and which in certain respects has been fed through the years.

Quote to us a few of the things that were so offensive.

They were things that were said in this House and the hon. member knows this as well as I do. [Interjections.] Since then, the original impression has been confirmed by the general quality of Bantu education. I have already mentioned a few existing things. If we compare this with the position in White education, surely hon. members know that there is no comparison. The feeling is further confirmed by the inferior quality of the teachers.

That is an insult to the Bantu teacher.

It concerns the qualifications of the Bantu teachers.

Yes, I am speaking of the qualifications of Bantu teachers. There are 5 738 unqualified Bantu teachers in the so-called White areas, of whom 5 332 possess only a junior certificate or a lower qualification. In the homelands, there are 6 321 unqualified Bantu teachers, of whom 5 545 possess only a junior certificate or a lower qualification. As regards the qualified teachers, of whom there are 22 700 outside the homelands, 19 354 have only a Std. 6 or junior certificate. In the homelands, where there are 28 321 teachers, no fewer than 22 900 of them have only a Std. 6 or a junior certificate.

How does that compare with other African States?

The hon. member knows what he can do with that type of argument. [Interjections.] Surely it is quite clear, furthermore, that the facilities in the Black schools compare unfavourably with those in the White schools. In addition, the Bantu outside the homelands are excluded from the whole administrative system of Bantu education. Except for one or two inspectors and a few assistant inspectors, they are completely excluded. I am speaking now of the administration and not of the school boards and school committees. I have gone through all the names in the department. Can the hon. members mention any Black person, except for the few inspectors and assistant inspectors, who plays any part in the administration of Bantu education in the so-called White areas? They do not exist. In other words, it is not their system, it is not their education. That brings us back to the whole question of why, for example, they bum down their schools and other amenities. These things are not their own creations and they do not feel that they belong to them.

In addition, we have the problem that in respect of the pupils, we are no longer dealing with children only. When we look back over the events of last year, it is a hard fact that in the homelands alone, no fewer than 81 000 pupils from a total of 233 000 are 18 years or older. In other words, 35% of the pupils in the schools in the homelands are older than 18 years. Outside the homelands, no less than 30% of the pupils, i.e. 48 000 of them, are older than 18 years. In speaking of pupils, we are inclined to think of the age groups of White pupils.

Bantu education is unfortunately seen as part of the apartheid mechanism and as part of Government policy.

That is nonsense.

It is the simple truth. This impression is confirmed by the policy of the Government to build the universities, the secondary schools and the hostels in the homelands. The facts are printed in the report. If time allows me, I shall come back to this later.

It is clear that the whole policy is designed to force the Bantu into the homelands, for only there can he receive secondary and university training. Therefore it is part of the Government’s policy of apartheid. In this way, the urban Bantu is forced to go to the homelands. Surely he cannot be expected to be grateful for this.

You are encouraging them!

It is of no interest to me to be told that I am encouraging them. I am stating the hard facts.

What do you suggest, then?

I wish the hon. member would leave me in peace. The whole system of schools is set out in the report; therefore I need not go into it. Although I suppose there are parents who are glad to have their children go to the hostels in the homelands, it is a burden to the majority of the urban Bantu parents, something which they reject and which they cannot afford. The fact is that the secondary schools in the urban areas are in fact unable to absorb those children, as a result of which the parents are forced to send their children to a homeland, whether they want to or not. It is against this background that we have to see the whole question of the medium of instruction. It is important that the Bantu should acquire a knowledge of English and Afrikaans in addition to their own mother language. I take no pleasure in the fact that so few Black pupils are choosing Afrikaans as their medium of instruction today. I regard it as a tragedy that the Black man in South Africa—and I want to say this quite frankly—has come to resent Afrikaans because of the actions of this Government. The lesson we learnt ourselves as Afrikaners, namely that a people dare not force its language and culture upon others, we have not applied in the case of the Bantu. I want to say to my hon. friends on the other side—they can do what they like with other people—that I deplore the fact that by acting as the exponents of this idea of apartheid and the denial of rights, they have spoilt the relationship between the Afrikaner and the Black man as they have. Apart from other aspects, this is the kind of policy which poses a greater threat than anything else to the Afrikaner, his survival, his language and his culture. It is no use covering up and denying this; it is the sober truth, and it is in this sense that the question of the medium of instruction was in fact the spark which led to the riots we had last year.

It is essential that there be a change of direction in the policy of the Government. It is essential, I believe, that a Black university be established in our urban areas. As regards the age of the Black students, no less than 23% of them are 25 years and over, in other words, they are no longer children. Of the total number of students at all three Black universities, i.e. a number of 5 134, no fewer than 2 799, i.e. 55%, come from outside the homelands. Forcing these people to go to the homelands is a policy which we honestly cannot defend before our own conscience.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edenvale raised quite a few matters which I should like to reply to. I just hope I shall have time to get to my prepared speech as well. It is surprising how one can draw different conclusions from the same information, just as the bee and the spider can draw honey and poison from the same flower. The hon. member noticed everything which was wrong with Bantu education. Did the hon. member say that expenditure on Bantu education had increased by 50% over the past year? Who was responsible for this? It was the hon. the Deputy Minister, on whom the Opposition vented all their derision and scorn, against whom all their barbs were aimed and whose salary they even want to reduce. He was the one who used his powers of persuasion and made requests in the most difficult of all financial circumstances, when every department had been requested to curtail its budget. He was the one who did the arm-twisting which resulted in an increase of 50% in the appropriation for Bantu education for the present financial year.

The hon. member for Edenvale made certain statements. He stated for the umpteenth time—this statement had been refuted a few minutes before—that one of the reasons for the riots, the spark which set off the riots—these were his words—was that we as Afrikaners forced our culture upon those people. This statement has just been refuted by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The information which appears in the Department’s annual report also refutes this statement. If the hon. member wants to take the trouble, he will find it on page 234 of the report where the various categories of education are indicated. We have lower primary education, higher primary education, secondary education, teacher training, etc. The medium of instruction in the various schools is also indicated on page 234. We see that 318 066 pupils are educated through the medium of Xhosa, 822 505 through the medium of Zulu, etc. 636 782 Bantu pupils received their instruction through the medium of English. Right next to it we have the column—it was a superfluous column—for the medium of Afrikaans.

The hon. member is welcome to look at page 234, because opposite every category there is only a dash for the medium of Afrikaans. This means that not a single Bantu pupil in the Republic of South Africa received his education through the medium of Afrikaans in the homelands. Although he is Afrikaans-speaking himself, the hon. member alleges here in the House that we are forcing our culture upon the Black man, and that this was the cause of the riots. We have words in the Afrikaans language to describe people like the hon. members for Edenvale and Durban Central as hon. members who foul their own nests. However, those words are so unparliamentary that I dare not use them.

Furthermore, the hon. member said that the educational system had got off to a bad start from the very outset. He said that this was the big problem. He also alleges that he has spoken to Black educationists, and that they told him that they were prejudiced against Bantu education from the start, because it is part of the aims of apartheid. I wonder which Black educationists he consulted. Did he perhaps take the trouble to talk to the greatest authority in the sphere of Black education in our country, Prof. Kgware? A while ago Otto Krause of Rapport put certain questions to him and asked him, inter alia, from what point of view we should approach education in a multinational South Africa. This was Prof. Kgware’s reply—

This is the education which was got off to a bad start and which created prejudice amongst the Black people.

He went on to say—

This is what the hon. member alleged once again tonight.

He went on to say—

The hon. member made other statements which are equally untenable. He spoke about the salaries of Black lecturers at universities. The salary of a Black professor does indeed amount to approximately 90% of that of his White counterpart. However, what the hon. member omitted to say—and I know of specific cases—is that, in that particular salary group, the tax which is paid by the Black man is considerably less than what is paid by his White counterpart. I know of a case where the Black professor lives on the campus, in one of the departmental houses which he rents for R28 per month, while his White counterpart has to rent an equivalent house in town, approximately 25 km away, for R250 per month. Then one wonders who is better off.

In the few minutes still available to me—there does not seem to be much time left—I should like to talk about technical and vocational training. Over the past years—this was mentioned in the previous debate—a great deal of capital has been spent on the development of the Black man and in making technological knowledge available to him. The finest and most valuable, contribution which has been made to the development of the Black man is the development of his human potential. All the capital which we have spent, the whole infrastructure which we have built up, and all the natural resources which are at the disposal of the Black man for developing his homelands, will not bring about that development if the more important component, that of a fully equipped, trained and prepared labour force, is lacking. Up to 1970 the Black pupil had an aversion for vocational and technical training. Up to that stage they still preferred the non-manual occupations, the so-called “white collar jobs”, as against the “blue collar jobs”. Since 1970, however, there has been a great interest in technical and vocational training. There is probably nothing more satisfying and enriching than to give to other people the good things in life which one has obtained for oneself over the years. Therefore I think it is fitting, in the minute or two I have left, for me to pay tribute to those people who have made a contribution, with great dedication, idealism and inspiration, to the technical and vocational training of our Black people. In the Port Natal constituency near the Umlazi Trade School there are several of my voters who are members of the staff of that trade school, and I do not know any more dedicated people.

In the various categories of education there are eight centres, for example, where training is available for Bantu pupils in technical subjects, for Bantu pupils who have passed Std. IV and who can then attend these eight institutions, institutions which incorporate the ordinary syllabus of the academic schools. Another seven are still being planned, and the intention is that by 1980, there should be a total of 32 of these training centres, where 90 000 Bantu pupils can be trained annually in technical directions. Apart from these, there are seven technical high schools which prepare the pupils for courses at the colleges for advanced technical education or even for universities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the more I hear of the Ministers, the Deputy Ministers and the Nationalist Party participants in this debate, the more I am reminded of a saying: “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. I say this because we hear ad nauseam Nationalist policy thumped out. We hear that there is going to be separation but equality. Speaker after speaker gets up and carries this message out into the hinterland and hawks it around from platform to platform to present this rosy glow of separatism and equality.

What hinterland?

Quite honestly, however, disc jockeys try to do the same thing with pop tunes. They think that by repetition the tunes will become acceptable, but this sort of thing is just not acceptable. In fact, it is a failure because the Nationalists inherited separatism and a plural society and they have done nothing to bring about a situation of equality. Consequently we find that after 30 years the world, the Opposition, the Nationalist intellectuals and, above all, the Bantu people themselves no longer cherish any romantic notions of achieving equality under Nationalist rule. I should like these members in the Government benches, who participate in the Bantu Education Vote, to take a little trip to a spot not three miles from here where they can let the scales drop from their eyes and see exactly what the situation is in this Cinderella department of theirs. What will they find? They will find that there are blocks of classrooms that are fire-blackened ruins and have remained like that for the last six months. They will find that windows are broken and that telephones do not function. Headmasters have not had telephones for months. They will find that the grounds are unkept and untidy and that there are weeds and litter everywhere. [Interjections.]

The truth hurts!

Inside the classrooms they will find teachers battling under teaching loads of up to 50 pupils per teacher. They will find children crowded into obsolete desks, using tatty, out-of-date books that are in short supply. They will find a deficit of equipment—it is so necessary to have equipment, particularly in the sciences, to teach away from the abstract and to give them something concrete to understand. Needlework equipment costs approximately R300, but the subsidy this Cinderella department can afford in that connection is R76. They will also find that the teachers lack training. Many of them do not even have matric. Consequently, the marks are appallingly low.

That is the case throughout the world.

Just to prove my point, during the strikes in Grahamstown last year, White teachers moved in to lend a hand and subsequently the marks were higher than they had ever been before. That proves it is not the inability of the students, but the lack of training of the teachers that is responsible. The hon. member for Virginia shakes his head. Let him take a little trip to Langa and to Guguletu and find out for himself.

This position cannot be helped because the teachers face huge classes. There is a huge drop-out rate and there is very little opportunity for people beyond matric. What is more, there are the double sessions. The headmaster gets an incredibly low salary. He gets R18 more than his assistant. A female teacher starts at R80 per month and a male teacher starts at R90 per month. They can get more as swimming-bath attendants or labourers. No wonder they are not keen to go into teaching. There is no administrative help and there is no paid study leave. No wonder the headmasters are at their wits’ end. I asked a question here whether there was full enrolment in the classes and the reply I received was “yes”. That is, however, nonsense, because many of the classes are 50% under full enrolment. Absentee children are roaming around in Transkei. In fact, headmasters will tell you, if you go and ask, that they depend on private donations. There are books in the headmasters’ offices where one can see the names of people who donate money with which the school tries to eke out a few extra library books. I understand that the funds of the township boards were frozen because there was a new secretary who misallocated these funds.

You are talking nonsense.

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to that.

One of the greatest problems is that the finances for these schools come from the beer halls which have been burnt down. In reply to a question I asked, I learnt that the loss amounted to R6 million. What is the position? Are shebeens subsidizing schools? What sort of ethics is that? Finally, one finds there a terrible atmosphere of grievance. The pupils feel there is a stigma attacked to Bantu education. In view of some of the background facts, I am not surprised that they feel this. They see that it is inferior to White education. Let us face it, Sir, it is appallingly inferior. Consequently, discipline is fragile. There is a bitterness, a frustration and resentment. Teachers will tell you that they cannot exert the discipline they would like to exert because they are threatened. Pupils refer to each other as “comrade”.

In conclusion, this Cinderella department is discriminated against in the allocation of funds so that it is unable to do its job properly. Africans see the NP policy as one of favouritism in respect of the Whites and prejudice against themselves. We have seen from the trouble we have had last year that they have emerged from a coma of endurance. They are irritated by the creaking and reluctant concessions they get from the Government.

Mr. Chairman …

I am sorry, Sir, but I have only three minutes.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

I think the priorities are all wrong in this budget.

Order! The hon. member wants to put a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Randburg allowed to obstruct our view with this feet?

Order!

Sir, as I have said, I think the budget priorities are all wrong. There is no increase in the allocation for teacher training or industrial training. The projections of the Human Sciences Research Council show that there is going to be a shortage of 84 000 teachers by the year 1990, and nothing is being done to meet this shortage. In fact, the budget has been cut by 55%. Funds for in-service training for teachers have also been cut by 23%. The greatest amount of R13,25 million, however, is being given to African universities. How can people who have to be educated with these inferior school facilities, ever expect to reach the stage where they can benefit from any university education?

Are you not ashamed?

Yes, I am. I am ashamed of you. That hon. member comes from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and should know what he is talking about. We have to have a massive injection of funds and we have to increase the per capita quota. When one looks at the figures one sees that the amount of Bantu was R23 in 1972 and in 1975 R41, whereas the figures for Whites was R458 in 1972 and in 1975 R621. This shows a hideous discrepancy in the amount of money which is allocated. In view of the fact that rugby unions are putting up millions of rand to build newer stadiums—I see a university is going to build a new stadium—I think the department, if it is short of funds, could launch an appeal to these bodies, which have a great deal of money, to provide funds for these facilities. We have to do something about uplifting teacher morale, and the first thing that will have to be done is to revise the salary scales. It has been done for the Whites. These matters have been worked out and they are going to be introduced. It is not only the structure that has to be revised, but also the salary scales. We have to have a greater recruitment of teachers so that they can move freely where the need is felt. In-service refresher courses must be provided for these people so that their very, very low morale can be boosted.

Finally, I think one should have a look at the increase in the number of inspectors who are available. I want to suggest that there should be an increase in the kilometer allocation available to inspectors for getting around these very wide areas in order to see these schools. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I hope I take up as much time making this point of order as the hon. member for Bloemfontein West took up during the speech of the hon. member who has just spoken. When an hon. member takes a point of order, and is immediately ruled out of order because it is a waste of time, is it not possible, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member whose time has been wasted, can be given additional time to speak?

Mr. Chairman, I shall not react immediately to all the standpoints taken by hon. members on the other side. I hope to have an opportunity tomorrow to deal with the specific points raised by hon. members. I shall just mention in passing that the hon. member for Edenvale referred to the question of principals. Of course, this is the case. We have already appointed a Black principal at a Black university, and in doing so we have, both in principle and in practice, embarked upon a course which will enable these people to serve their own people in their own institutions. Of course it is self-evident that there must be people available for this. Suitable people must be available, and the councils are instructed to take up the matter and to try and obtain the right candidates. This process is under way. Of course, a vacancy must arise before such a person can be appointed. The department cannot simply discharge someone merely to appoint a Black man. I think it would be a new form of discrimination if anyone should be appointed just because he is Black, regardless of his qualifications. It would be a new form of discrimination.

The hon. member referred to parity of salaries. It is true that we have not achieved parity yet, but I just want to point out that it is not a question of a mere R200 000. The moment one begins to bring about parity of salaries within the Public Service, it has to be carried through. It has far-reaching implications. It will cause a chain reaction throughout the Public service.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.