Mr. Chairman, we have read with interest the reports of the Department of Tourism and of the S.A. Tourist Corporation. They cover very much the same ground. That is not surprising as both these organizations are concerned with the promotion of tourism to South Africa. Both the Secretary of Tourism and the Board of Control of the S.A. Tourist Corporation report to the hon. the Minister of Tourism on the activities of their respective organizations. Moreover, the Secretary of the department is the chairman of the S.A. Tourist Corporation.

We also note that the Department of Tourism has budgeted for the current year for approximately R7 million of which nearly R6 million is paid in the form of grants-in-aid to the S.A. Tourist Corporation. We note further that the functions of these two organizations appear to overlap to a large extent, although it would appear that the S.A. Tourist Corporation is wholly concerned with the promotion of tourism from abroad whereas the Department of Tourism promotes tourism both from abroad and within South Africa itself. We note that both the department and the corporation visited the Far East last year, presumably acting in their dual capacities. They went to the same countries with only minor variations in their itineraries.

I do not wish to draw any major conclusions from this apparent overlapping or duplication. No doubt the hon. the Minister has already applied his mind to the functional organization of the department and of the corporation, and will have come to certain conclusions. I think the House will be grateful to learn from the hon. the Minister whether he considers the present functional organization—proceeding in tandem, as it were—to be the best organization or whether he proposes to make any changes in what would appear, on the face of it, to contain a degree of duplication.

Let us turn to the question of foreign tourists. We know that, since 1975, there has been a considerable drop in the number of tourists coming to South Africa. The drop between 1975 and 1976 was something like 12,5%, and between 1976 and 1977 a further 7,7%. We would be interested to hear from the hon. the Minister whether the optimistic or hopeful signs at the end of 1977 have been continuing and what the prospects look like for 1978. The fact that there is a drop in tourism in South Africa is of course of quite considerable economic importance. The question arises of what techniques can be employed to deal with the problem of attracting a greater number of tourists from abroad at a time when mass communications are being greatly expanded, when facilities for tourism are being greatly expanded throughout the world and when competition for tourism grows ever keener by the year, but costs of travel continue to rise. I believe we have to look at the techniques being used by other countries in order to ascertain what are the most successful ways of bringing tourists to this country. One notices that a number of countries are trying to meet the great problem of rising costs—a great deterrent to the tourist trade—by offering package tours.

If one looks at the overseas’ newspapers one finds, in the case of Spain for example, that they are offering South African tourists a package for about R500, which includes the airfare and a stay of 10 or 14 days in Spain. This, Sir, is the attractive kind of offer which will overcome the deterrent effect of increased and rising prices.

I believe, too, Sir, that it is very important to attract students. There is a rising tide of student travel throughout Europe from all over the world. It may be thought that because students are comparatively poor, they are of less importance in the tourist trade. They are, however, influential in that they are pioneers for their parents. They arouse the interest of their friends and in due course, when they advance in their professions, they themselves become tourists of a certain importance. I believe that even through such a tourist is not at the time of his studentship a very attractive or rich prospect as a tourist, his significance as an influencing factor or potential asset should not be underestimated. Attention should therefore be given to the attraction of such tourists to South Africa.

This again brings us to the question of package tours, because unless these can be arranged, I believe that the inducements offered by our scenery and the other attractions of South Africa will not overcome the price deterrent. I am not sure to what extent the Department is working closely together with SAA to try to produce a package of this kind. In our domestic tourist trade we do in fact offer this kind of package where the hotel costs are included in the air fare, or where the two are offered together as a package so that the rates can be made attractive. Can this not be done in respect of overseas tourism as well? Cannot we offer a good package of this kind?

We see on page 2 of the Department’s report that tourism by people from overseas into South Africa may be earning us more than the cost of South African tourists going abroad. The Department says that this is an interesting question which it is going to research. I would have thought that this question was the name of the game, and I am rather astonished to find that the matter is now only being researched with a view to achieving greater clarity. If one looks at the figures in the Bulletin of Statistics, one finds that there is in fact a deficit of between 100 000 and 150 000 tourists per year. That is to say, more leave South Africa to go abroad than are coming into South Africa. This is quite a deficit, and surely it must be the purpose of the Department of Tourism to achieve some kind of balance between those who leave the country and those who come in, and some kind of balance in the expenditure of those who go abroad to tour and those who come to South Africa to tour. I would have thought that this was the essence of the purpose of the department: not to discourage South Africans from going abroad, but rather to ensure that the expenses they incur in going abroad are balanced by the profits earned in South Africa by the hotel industry and the tourist industry as a whole. I would have thought that their function was to see that in so far as our balance of trade in tourism is concerned, we do not suffer serious loss. I believe that this is certainly a matter which needs to be looked into. If we are to achieve a balance, which on the figures so far published has not been achieved, then I believe we must look to the new techniques of modern tourism such as mass tours and the other methods being used to overcome the very high cost deterrent to tourism. I once again recommend that the Minister should investigate the whole question of package tours which, despite the very attractive literature put out by the Department of Tourism, does not appear to be a key feature. I have also not been able to find in overseas newspapers any example of the S.A. Tourist Corporation sponsoring package tours of this nature. I believe that this may well be the modern technique. It is certainly being used by other countries. We look forward to hearing the hon. the Minister’s point of view in this connection when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member for Von Brandis—I am sorry; I mean the hon. member for Constantia—I gained the sincere impression that he means well with tourism in South Africa. I do not think it inappropriate that the hon. member was the chief spokesman on tourism, since he has a great deal of experience of tourism. For example, he has toured from Von Brandis to Constantia. We assume that it was a pleasant tour! [Interjections.] There is one point, however, which the hon. member should not overlook when he draws a comparison between what is customary overseas today and what, in his opinion, should be implemented in South Africa, we should not forget that South Africa, as far as tourism and its tourist potential are concerned, is unique in the world of today. South Africa is unique for various reasons. Firstly, we are situated far from the market. Secondly, South Africa will have to prepare itself in the time ahead to receive those tourists who, as a result of developments higher up in South Africa, will be channelled to an increasing extent to South Africa, for the very reason that those markets in Africa which they used to utilize, have become dangerous areas which are no longer accessible to them. Therefore, I want to reassure the hon. member by telling him that this department, together with Satour and the Hotel Board are investigating and utilizing every possible technique in the interests of the incoming tourists from abroad as well as in the interests of South Africans who love travelling and looking at the attractions in South Africa itself.

I should like to express appreciation this afternoon towards the officials of the three different agencies which work together in South Africa in such a manner that they form a very strong nucleus, a nucleus which stands on three legs and promotes tourism in South Africa as such.

There is the Hotel Board, which has I think since 1965 inspected the hotel industry and succeeded in improving the quality of the industry to such an extent that South Africa is today able to compete with the best which other countries can offer. But in my opinion there is something else for which the Hotel Board also deserves a pat on the back. I am referring to the way in which the Hotel Board is offering training to people who seek employment in the hotel industry. I think those people who are attuned to noticing the type and quality of hotel service will notice that the quality of the service in our hotels has improved dramatically over the last few years.

The second leg is Satour which has been an active force since 1947 and whose special purpose is to develop the tourist industry of the Republic of South Africa by encouraging people to visit and to travel in the Republic. In order to perform this task efficiently, Satour not only had to market South Africa’s tourist attractions overseas, but also had to provide information to the travel industry and to the prospective visitor. It had to concentrate in particular on that highly specialized source, viz. the tourism marketing field. Here one cannot help adding: And what a success they made of it! I think that that very capable Mr. Da Silva and his associates deserve a special pat on the back for the manner in which they have taken up the cudgels for South Africa in the past in the film industry and by means of photography.

Then there is the third leg, the Department of Tourism itself. It is not a department which only plans, encourages and analyses, but is also a department which is aware of its responsibility towards South Africa as it is outlined on page 1, chapter 1 of the annual report—

Therefore we cannot refrain from also expressing our appreciation to the Secretary and his staff for this reaction in their planning with which that concept is extended. There is just something I should perhaps mention in passing. Every one of us who has glanced at this report of the Department of Tourism, has probably been struck by the skilful use of words, in other words the extremely elegant use of words and the correct language in this report. This word usage we found very stimulating.

The success of any endeavour—in this case this joint effort by the Hotel Board, Satour and the department—depends to a large extent on the measure of realism with which the project is undertaken. If the Hotel Board had not been realistic about the standard of accommodation and service in hotels, the hotel industry in South Africa today would not have been on a par with—or even better than—that which we find in other countries. Moreover, if Satour had not been realistic in its efforts to determine which images and luxury the world tourist was seeking, and if it had not concentrated on that, its promotion campaign would have been less successful. Furthermore, if the department had not launched a timely campaign to reassure the prospective tourist about his safety in South Africa, a great many of the tourists who want to visit South Africa would still have been sceptical today about the desirability of a visit to South Africa. The same is true of the initiative to go ahead with the registration of our tour guides in South Africa. I believe that the department has succeeded in striking a blow for us in this field so that those who visit South Africa may be handled and served by people whose loyalty to and knowledge of South Africa are not in doubt. I believe the foundations of a sound tourist industry have already been laid in South Africa. I believe that we could just streamline them somewhat in future but I feel that not much real change is necessary. I think that there are three areas which can still be identified and which will require our attention in the future. In the first place, as regards the interests of the foreign tourist, I believe the department has made great progress. We shall have to realize, however, that due to certain factors in Africa which I mentioned earlier, the best known and most popular doors have been closed or are being closed to the international tourist.

One calls to mind, for example, the tension between Somalia and Ethiopia and the conflict between Egypt and Israel, which means that people are being channelled away from the northern parts of Africa. The poverty in countries with an abundant animal life has also caused today’s tourist to be sceptical about visiting those areas. Southern Africa in particular has become one of the few parts in the world where game parks and game reserves still offer the great attraction of the animal in its natural state. This factor could cause an increase in the interest in South Africa.

The fact that more interest is being focussed on South Africa can also cause problems, however, because we can also get a wider spectrum of tourists in South Africa. During the last few months South Africa has become of primary international importance. South Africa is today being subjected to a more thorough and professional scrutiny than ever before, and this has certain implications. South Africa has become the focus of the attention of the international media on an unprecedented scale. It has become of real interest, not only to the foreign investor, but also to the foreign Governments and to the tourist. This might mean that the well-off tourist might from now on be accompanied by the less well-off observer and investigator. This could develop into a source which we must utilize, a source of important contacts visiting South Africa, for studies have shown that people coming to South Africa, leave the country with an entirely quite different point of view.

Therefore I believe that each one of us, regardless of the political party to which he belongs, has a responsibility to prove to the tourist that we are sincere in our intentions and that although some people do not agree with it, we are implementing a policy with concern for and goodwill towards everyone and with respect for human dignity. I think the Department of Tourism should perhaps pay more attention in future to the utilization of the individual to act as a host in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to deal immediately with the criticisms and suggestions that came from the main speaker of the Official Opposition. I want to express my appreciation to him for the interest he obviously shows in the Department of Tourism and for his concern for the success of that department. Without cavilling in any way, I want to put a suggestion to him. Every year before this Vote comes under discussion the Department of Tourism extends an invitation to members on all sides of the House interested in tourism to attend a little exhibition of our activities and achievements in the concourse of the Hendrik Verwoerd Building. We would appreciate it very much and it would be in the interests of all concerned if he would in future attend those because I think his will find there many interesting answers to his problems. I am also satisfied that he will then be able to make perhaps not a better but certainly a more informed contribution to the discussion.

The hon. member for example expressed concern about the fact that there was an overlapping of duties undertaken when both the Satour chairman and I undertook a visit to the Far East during the recess in the interests of tourism. In point of fact there was no overlapping. Although it is true that I was accompanied by the chairman of the S.A. Tourist Corporation, he also happens to be the Secretary for the Department of Tourism.

It is natural that he should accompany me and it is also very natural that we should go there in the interests of Satour because, although Satour is a statutory body, it works in the closest co-operation with the department. For all practical purposes their work and that of the department is as one; it is very difficult to separate except in a very formal manner the daily activities of the one from the other. For that reason I want to suggest to the hon. member that the criticism was not particularly well-founded.

I want to add that on that occasion it was not only the Secretary for Tourism and I who went overseas, but we actually went to lead a very strong delegation of the private tourist industry of South Africa. We were accompanied by representatives of travel agencies, tour operators and especially the hotel industry of South Africa. They in their sphere and we in ours made the most valuable and the most fruitful contacts with our counterparts in various countries in the Far East. I am told that the fact that we made those contacts is already bearing fruit in the arrival of tourists from that part of the world in South Africa, especially in the case of tourists who come here on, as we call them, special interest tours. They are people who come here since they are interested in particular aspects of South African life and they want to see more about them.

The hon. member referred to the fact that there was a decline in the arrivals of tourists from overseas after the troubles we had had in Soweto merely two years ago. He then asked me whether the apparent improvement at the end of last year was being maintained. The position is that from a decline of about 12% in the last three months of 1976, we had an improvement of plus 6% in the last three months of 1977. Unfortunately I have no statistics for the new year yet. I am dependent upon the Department of Statistics and although they are very efficient, I have not had any statistics for the first month or two of 1978. I can assure my hon. friend, however, that from the indicators we have, such as hotel bookings and the activities of tour operators and travel agencies, there is every indication that that improvement is being maintained. We are quite optimistic that we shall do exceptionally well this year unless something unforeseen happens.

I want to tell my hon. friend immediately that this is not due to an accident, since, at the time of the troubles at Soweto, the Department of Tourism together with Satour took immediate action to conduct, what I call an “operation re-assurance” in the countries of origin of our tourists. We had special seminars, we paid special visits upon all our business associates in the 13 areas where we have overseas’ offices and we invited travel agents to South Africa on an unprecedented scale. We brought travel writers and the correspondents and editors of travel trade magazines from all over the world to South Africa. The result was that a message of reassurance was spread all over the world. This arrested the decline that was quite serious but which could have been much more serious without this action. We then succeeded in changing the negative trend into a positive one once more.

My hon. friend asked me what more can be done to encourage tourists and he thought particularly of package tours. It is not so easy for South Africa to arrange package tours since we are a distant destination for most of the people who come from overseas. I am not talking about tourists who come over the borders from Rhodesia and such countries; they are a different matter altogether, but I refer to tourists from Europe, the Far East and America. Such tourists have to come a long way and it is not so easy for us to compile package tours because of the high air fares as would have been the case if, for example, Spain would try to entice British tourists to Spain.

I referred to South Africans going to Spain. Spain is offering South Africans package tours.

Yes, and I am coming to that. They do that and we do it too. I am not saying that we are not doing it at all. We certainly do it on a scale comparable to theirs. As a result of our efforts, people are going on tours, but we cannot expect the extensive packaging of tours such as those being arranged for people who are near the origins of tourists. Nevertheless, we try to do that. What we do, however, and even more successfully—this is a similar operation—is that we arrange for the organization of special interest tours, something to which I have already referred. We bring people here from all over the world, and, interestingly enough, very often from the Far East. These people are interested in South African life. They are interested in wild life, for instance our wild flowers and fauna.

They are also interested in agricultural aspects. Some of them come on highly specialized tours, for example a wild flower tour only. Tours such as these are proving a great success. I am bearing the suggestion which the hon. member has made in mind, and whenever the possibility for increased package tours offers itself, we shall gladly avail ourselves of it.

The hon. member also wanted to know what part the S.A. Airways play in the work of my department. I want the hon. member to know that the S.A. Airways is a most valued partner of the Department of Tourism and I hope that they find us also a most valued partner. We work in the closest co-operation. Nowhere in the world where we conduct a major operation in advertising or in tourist promotion, is it done without the full cooperation of the S.A. Airways. They are certainly most tourist conscious and we appreciate the co-operation that we get from them very highly indeed.

Finally, the hon. member was also worried about the balance between tourists leaving South Africa and tourists arriving in South Africa. He seemed to find an adverse balance for South Africa. I think the problem is that he is including overland visitors to territories near to South Africa. The hon. member must remember that many of those people go to Swaziland, Lesotho and Rhodesia for a day or two or for a week-end. They enter these areas which have the same monetary system as we have, and therefore the problem that worries him does not apply to the same extent as it does to overseas visits. As far as people who are genuine overseas tourists are concerned I think we are justified in claiming that we are now breaking even and with all the remarkable activities on the part of my department to encourage South Africans to tour in South Africa, we are fairly confident of achieving a favourable balance before long.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer the hon. the Minister to a remark which I made earlier and to which he has not actually replied. I wanted to know from the hon. the Minister whether, in view of the identity of purpose, and to some extent senior personnel, between the Tourist Corporation and his department, there might not be some streamlining of the present dual system?

That is a good question, but there is in fact no dual system, because Satour concentrates upon encouraging people from overseas countries to visit South Africa whereas my department’s activities—apart from those of Satour, which also falls under my department—are concerned with hotels, the Hotel Board, and the encouragement of internal tourism by South Africans through the large number of tourist bureaux which we have all over South Africa. Their main function is to encourage South Africans to visit various places in South Africa, to make their holiday habits more versatile and not to be confined to visits every year to the same places. I can assure the hon. member that there is no overlapping in practice, except perhaps for the top structure where the Secretary of the department is also the chairman of Satour. In the actual executive functions of the department and of Satour there is, however, no duplication whatsoever.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem also made a very interesting contribution to the debate. He had a special word of praise for our hotels. I appreciate that very much because we South Africans are in my opinion entitled to boast with pride of the hotel industry in South Africa. In this regard, stimulated by the hon. member for Bethlehem, I should like to make a short statement.

†I find it quite remarkable to note the tremendous improvement of hotel standards in this country since the establishment of the Hotel Board, under my department, 12 years ago. Further improvements are still being introduced almost daily. Yet—this is very important—hotel tariffs in South Africa remain among the lowest in the whole world. Visiting foreign travel agents, of which there were more than 700 in 1977, constantly expressed surprise at the low tariffs and the excellent service which goes with them.

I hope the hotel industry will maintain this excellent track record as far as possible as it is one of our most forceful advertising platforms.

There is, however, one aspect which causes problems, and that is the relationship between hotels and travel agents. I feel this must receive serious attention as soon as possible. Both these sectors of the industry have their own national trade organizations—Fedhasa and Asata—and both these organizations are affiliated to international bodies, namely the International Hotel Association and the Universal Federation of Travel Agents’ Association. As far back as 1970, these international bodies entered into an agreement or convention to regulate the relationship between their members. Yet, in South Africa there is no such agreement yet. A convention of this nature should, I think, be created and should regulate important matters such as: What is a hotel booking? When is a hotel reservation effective? What is a cancellation of a booking? What is a deposit and when must it be paid? Under what circumstances is a deposit refundable? When is a commission payable to a travel agent? In what period should a travel agent settle his account?, etc. There is no doubt in my mind—not only because it is a healthy trade practice, but also in the interests of the consumer and the foreign travel agent and tour operator—that an agreement or convention regulating these important matters is absolutely essential, and I would urge the relevant trade organizations to get together and to come to some agreement regarding their relationship. Such an agreement could also be of value to the consumer in South Africa, who in most cases is in a quandary as to his commitments when making a reservation directly.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister mentioned the exhibition of last Monday to which all the representatives of the parties in this House were invited. I should very much like to express my heart-felt appreciation to the hon. the Minister, the Department of Tourism, Satour and the Hotel Board for having made that exhibition possible for us. It was an exhibition of a very high standard, one that was presented in good taste and it was definitely a resounding success.

I should also like to mention the fact that the changes to the fuel regulations resulted in a major improvement as regards the tourism industry in the Southern Cape. On behalf of the Southern Cape Tourism and Development Association, I want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and to the Department of Tourism, for having given this matter their attention. Mr. Chairman, you will probably allow me to refer to the Cango Caves now. For the first 20 days of March this year, after the fuel regulations had been relaxed, the Cango Caves had 531 visitors more than in the corresponding period last year. During the Easter weekend this year, the Cango Caves had 650 visitors more than during the Easter weekend last year. I want to repeat that the relaxation of the fuel regulations has been very advantageous to the tourist industry in the Southern Cape.

Naturally, tourism is a question of marketing, the marketing of South Africa abroad. Bodies which deal with tourism, face a considerable number of difficult and complicated problems which have to be overcome. I just want to mention two of these. The first is that the vehement propaganda against South Africa often deters prospective visitors to South Africa as the very object of such propaganda is to brand South Africa as an unsafe country. The second stumbling block which has to be overcome, is the ignorance which prevails about Africa and South Africa. In this regard I want to quote from a report from Die Vaderland of 26 April 1978 in which Mr. J. L. Bing, the National secretary of the Association of S.A. Travel Agents, wrote the following—

Mr. Bing feels that what most Americans actually need, is a simple lesson on the geography of Africa. The results which have been achieved in this regard speak volumes for the purposefulness, perseverance and ingenuity of the department and of Satour. I feel that because of this the target figure of one million visitors from abroad to South Africa per year is not far-fetched. The valued work and efforts by our people charged with tourism, deserve our best and strongest support.

Satour is achieving a great deal of success with its marketing theme “A world tour in one country”. When South Africa is presented in this way, it is no exaggeration or distortion of the truth. South Africa has a variety of peoples and therefore a variety of languages, traditions, cultures and art treasures. South Africa has wide open spaces, mountains, mountain passes, beaches, fauna, magnificent flora, beautiful scenery and modern cities, too many things to mention. All of this confirms the fact that when a visitor comes to South Africa, he can undertake a world tour in one country.

I am satisfied that the department, Satour and other interested parties are doing more than their share. They are marketing South Africa in a positive way and with a great deal of enthusiasm. We—I am speaking of the ordinary public—must help them to promote this wonderful country, this country which offers the visitor everything. I ask myself whether we are not too often on the defensive. Are we not responding to attacks with counter-attacks? It is not an impossible task to promote South Africa, this wonderful country. There are many channels at our disposal. It is not necessary for us to establish a large organization once again. I want to point out a few of these channels.

I believe that every South African who goes abroad, should see to it that one foreigner visit South Africa in his or her turn. In other words, when a South African is on a foreign visit and enjoying his travels, he must also avail himself of the opportunity to market and to promote South Africa. He must introduce this country, which offers a world tour in one country, to the people.

There is a second channel which must be used. I feel that immigrants who are enjoying a happy stay in South Africa, should introduce South Africa to their family and friends abroad. We have many immigrant organizations in our country. There must be liaison with them and they must be asked to do something in return for South Africa, because South Africa has been so good to them.

There is a third channel which may be used to promote South Africa, and this is the business world. I believe that the business world can make a very important contribution. A businessman must not go on his business trip just to do business for his company, he must also utilize it to promote this wonderful country, South Africa.

There are also our many service and cultural organizations with their often colourless agendas which can be used to do South Africa a service and to promote the South African culture when they contact and correspond with foreigners. In this way, too, this wonderful country can be promoted.

There is also our own correspondence with friends abroad. I include all hon. members in this. When we correspond with people abroad, we must promote this country of ours in a positive way. Surely we are all able to promote South Africa. Surely we can all speak positively about our country to help eliminate the ignorance which prevails about South Africa. I am not speaking of political ignorance, but the ordinary ignorance about the situation of South Africa and what it has to offer. I believe we are often too passive, and sit back too easily. We want other people to do this work for us. Every South African, every member of the public, must be intent on promoting South Africa. This afternoon I want to ask our newspapers, the fine magazines which we have in this country, our radio and television to help as well. For instance, a short flash message could be broadcast on a weekly basis in which the public is asked to promote their country and to make a contribution. I am thinking of a single flash—perhaps every day or every second day—on television showing the major tourist attractions in South Africa with the question: “Are you promoting your country?” This could serve as an incentive for them to speak in a positive way of this country, which we often speak of, which we are proud of and towards which we want to prove our patriotism, knowing that if people have been here once, they will be friends of South Africa who will in turn further promote South Africa. The marketing expression is: “A world tour in one country.” This afternoon I ask us all to accept as our personal slogan: “I must promote this country.”

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn made a very thought-provoking speech this afternoon without mentioning the Cango Caves or the ostriches.

I did.

In any event, not to any great extent. However, the point that he did illustrate very clearly was that this debate should always be conducted as a non-political debate, and thank heaven for that.

Then you had better sit down.

I wish to apologize at the outset to the hon. the Minister for the absence of the chairman of our tourism group, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Unfortunately he cannot be with us today. He is busy with a breed of cattle known as Santa Gertrudes at the Royal Agricultural Show at Pietermaritzburg, and I think this will ultimately become one of the main tourist attractions of that show. So he is doing something for tourism in our country.

That sounds like a lot of bull to me.

The Department of Tourism is a small department, relatively speaking, but I want to say at the outset that it is an extremely well-managed and extremely well-run department. We in this party are unanimous in our congratulations to the Secretary and his total staff, which consists of a mere 94 people. Obviously they are 94 efficient people, because they are doing a very, very good job of work. The quality of the heads and the senior men in the department and on the boards which fall under the Secretary is extremely good. However, I want to criticize—and I trust the hon. the Minister will accept this as constructive criticism—the fact that of the total funds budgeted for the Department of Tourism—an amount of R6 858 000—something like R5 910 000 is allocated to Satour and to the S.A. Regional Tourism Council. That is to say that 86% of the total budget is allocated to these two bodies, by far the bulk of it going to Satour. There is no way we can scrutinize how this money is spent, and we feel that we would like to be able to examine the various items of expenditure. We feel that we would like a statement, a balance sheet, from Satour, setting out exactly how the money is spent. We are not being critical of Satour, but merely of the fact that they are allocated nearly R6 million while the members of this House do not have details of the expenditure of this money. We feel that we would like to participate in a debate across the floor of the House on how 86% of the allocated money has been spent. We compliment the Hotel Board because they now have their hotel school where hotel staff are trained to attain a high level of efficiency. Nevertheless, we feel it must be extended faster and we would encourage more on-site training; that is to say the training of hotel staff in their places of employment. We should like to see instructors go to the larger hotels and observe and train on site. We would be glad if this could possibly be arranged to a greater degree than it is presently done. It is done to a certain extent, and we appreciate that. However, we would like to see it extended to the smaller— not only the four and five star hotels—one and two star hotels in the country. We believe that this is very important.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that the hotels have an excellent track record. However, we believe that this track record can only be maintained by constant vigilance on the part of the Hotel Board to ensure that the standards are kept at the levels of the grading that were allocated to those hotels. I have to say that I believe there are a number of hotels—particularly one star hotels—in this country that, having attained that single star, just allow themselves to slide. They now do not come anywhere near the provisions of the requirements of that one star rating. I believe there should be more vigilance in this connection.

Sliding star!

You are right. Falling star!

We, in common with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Constantia, would like to feel that the hon. the Minister of Tourism could get the hon. the Minister of Transport to think more deeply in respect of package tours. In replying to the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. the Minister of Tourism has already indicated that this is not easy. He says it is not easy, I believe, by virtue of the fact that we have vast distances to cover both to get to and in South Africa.

However, my question to him is this: How does America do it? America has far greater distances and they do manage to arrange package tours. Then there is also a tremendous permutation of package tours to the USA. I believe we could look at this more deeply, and I think we should encourage this.

We should particularly encourage tourists on a package tour basis from South America. Tourist-wise South America is at the moment a golden market as far as we are concerned. Each tourist from South America is currently, I understand, spending approximately R1 000 plus in South Africa over a period of two or three weeks. There are even cases of South American tourists—Argentinians—coming into this country and buying television sets which they take back home. They are spending enormous amounts of money in South Africa. The Argentinian is one that can be particularly mentioned in this regard.

The S.A. Tourist Corporation spends R1 million on direct advertising and point-of-sale programmes. There were some 600 000 foreign visitors from overseas last year. That means that Satour spends approximately R1,70 per visitor in respect of advertising at point of sale. Our tourist industry for the overseas visitor is worth something like R800 million. There is an old saying that says that one has to speculate to accumulate. If we are only spending R1,70 per tourist, I do not believe that we are spending enough to encourage more tourists to come to South Africa. This is again not said in any destructive way but in a constructive manner. I believe we could possibly allocate even more funds to Satour to enable them to enlarge …

How do you arrive at a figure of R1,70 per tourist?

I am referring to the R1 million which is spent on direct advertising. If one spreads this figure over 600 000 tourists from overseas, one arrives at a figure of R1,70 per tourist.

We have called upon the hon. the Minister to talk to the Minister of Transport, or the Minister of Railways. In fact, that Minister wears these two hats; the one moment he is Minister of Transport and the next he is Minister of Railways. We believe that our national roads need beautification. We need to have our lay-byes cleaned up properly. The lay-byes on our national roads are always in a shocking condition. We believe that proper toilets should be provided at major stops. We should also have what are known on the Continent as “comfort stops” on the centre islands of our freeways to enable people to pull off the road and utilize proper facilities instead of the current situation, where people go off into the bushes. This is a most undesirable state of affairs. One does not find this on the Continent and there is no reason why we cannot have such facilities here. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal I should like to refer to what is, in my view, one of the greatest assets of South Africa. I should also like to refer to the financial magnitude of that asset. Thereafter, I should like to say how I feel this vast asset of South Africa can be developed. I feel that tourism is the key to that asset. We take many things for granted, but I nevertheless want to point out that South Africa has one of the greatest assets in existence. South Africa has justifiably been described as “the greatest wild-life show in the world”. When it comes to land mammals, South Africa has not only the biggest, and not only the second biggest, but also the third biggest mammal. I am referring to the elephant, the white rhinoceros and the hippopotamus. Many species of birds of the world are also found here. The biggest bird in the world, the ostrich, and the biggest flying bird, the giant bustard, are found here. As far as flora is concerned, South Africa has 3 000 more species of plant than the USA, viz. 18 000 as against 15 000. Then we must keep in mind that we only have an area equal to one-seventh of that of the USA. One can go on like this and also refer, for example, to aspects such as species of flowers.

When one comes to the antelope, one can really wax lyrical. Before I come to that, I just want to point out that South Africa also has the fastest animal in the world, namely the cheetah. We also have the tallest animal, namely the giraffe. Besides, we also have the smallest mammal in the world, namely the musk-shrew. When it comes to the antelope, we find that there are only three regions in the world where antelope are found in numbers worth speaking of.

In the USA there are only two or three species, and in Asia only about five species. All the other antelopes are found in Africa. In the entire world there are approximately 80 species of antelope, and 33 of them are found in South Africa. Among the biggest of these is the eland and among the smallest, the blue duiker, both of which are found in South Africa.

†One must bear in mind the financial magnitude of these assets. I should like to refer briefly to the direct turnover related to nature conservation and the exploitation of our fauna and flora. If we look at the amounts that have been spent by the various provincial parks boards and the National Parks Board, we find that an amount of over R20 million is involved. Apart from these parks boards there are also various municipal game and nature reserves and various private game and nature reserves. Some of the private game parks have a turnover of over R100 000 per year. There are lion parks and zoological gardens, and in addition there is the culling which is associated with game farming, which allows for hunting and fishing. Let us also look at the indirect turnover. Last year South Africa had approximately 600 000 tourists from overseas. If only 60% of those people spent two nights in one of these nature reserves at R15 per day, this country would earn an amount of more than R10 million. At the secondary income level there are films, television and broadcasting. I might just mention that one film, Born Free, netted over R20 million. There are also aspects such as publishing, printing, curios, novelties and souvenirs that can be sold and also there is money derived from the sale of ancillary equipment for climbing, camping, hiking and boating. It is estimated that in South Africa more than R50 million per annum is spent in this category. There is also photographic and allied equipment and other products. The Kruger National Park, for example, sold game products to the value of more than R600 million last year. There are also tertiary groups in societies and clubs, for example the S.A. Game Breeders, Game Farmers, Wild Life Management Associations, the Natal Wild Life Society, etc. One could go on naming them endlessly. All these people are spending money.

I should like to refer to a paper that was read by K. Babich at a symposium on wild life management held at Unisa. I just want to quote one sentence. He was talking about the National Survey of Fishing and Hunting (1970) in the USA—

*Even the Federal Republic, in the paper called the German Tribune which they publish, have a full page advertisement addressed to the Americans, and this is how they lure tourists—

They go on like that. They also say—

But look at everything we have—and those people advertise what they have, because they know where the development lies. What is the present position? We find that these areas are being controlled as national parks, provincial parks, municipal parks, private parks, etc. Everyone has a different approach. Some parks have a different approach in respect of utilization, and how is one going to unite all these different bodies in respect of the utilization of this vast asset which we have? As an example, I quote just the four provincial parks boards which we have—the Natal Parks Board and the other three. The other three spend approximately R2 to R3 million annually and have a revenue of approximately R1 million. That is the profit of the three nature conservation sections. But the approach of the Natal Parks Board is not conservation for the sake of utilization, but rather conservation for the sake of conservation. It spends more than R6 million annually and also shows a revenue of a mere R1 million.

On the other hand, the Kruger National Park spends more than R7 million annually, but because it is orientated towards conservation for utilization, it has a turnover of more than R10 million—a gross profit of more than 20% as against that of Natal, which has a different approach. Here, once again, we have an autonomous body which has no direct responsibility to the province, while the nature conservation sections of the other provinces, of course, do have that responsibility. One can therefore see how important this matter is. We have a vast physical asset here. I have pointed out certain of its financial implications, and I feel that the key to the future development of this asset should be found. We should reflect on how it can be developed. This asset must be presented to the overseas tourist in a coordinated and systematic manner. There are people who come to South Africa to hunt. Others, again, are only interested in certain species of flora and fauna. How is all that presented? I can see only one way in which that can be done satisfactorily, namely by establishing an umbrella body representing the Department of Tourism, the National Parks Board and the provincial divisions involved, and possibly also representatives of the private parks. In Natal alone, there are more than 33 private parks which offer unique possibilities. If we establish this umbrella body, which can systematically develop and present this asset, it can mean a lot to us. I therefore request that the department of Tourism should give attention to the possibility of an umbrella body of this nature. Whether it should have statutory powers, I do not know. We must also take into account that this vast asset is renewable, and that unlike our mineral assets, it does not decrease in value. This is a renewable asset and not a waning asset, and that is very important.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on his very interesting speech. It appears from this debate that tourism is a very important earner of foreign exchange for our country. It is therefore gratifying to know that during the past six months, a slow but important growth has become visible in this field. The Department of Tourism is launching more and more dynamic promotion campaigns in foreign markets. Apart from that, everything possible is being done to improve internal tourism and to ensure that we get our rightful share of the constantly increasing international tourism. According to a report in Die Vaderland which has already been quoted, it is expected —according to the Secretary—that in 1980 a million tourists will visit the country. I believe that this is not a vain dream because—as has correctly been stated—in other countries, the tourist can see many things, but in South Africa he can see everything: South Africa is indeed a world in one country. The growth of tourism during recent years has also meant that the emphasis has been placed more and more on the improvement of existing services which are offered to the tourist. What is also necessary, amongst other things, is a greater measure of professionalism in all fields. With this object in view, we recently adopted the Tour Guides Bill in the House. This legislation was timely and also essential, because a great responsibility rests on the tour guide. In many respects, the tour guide determines the success of a tour. It is the tour guide’s specialized knowledge and his conduct, trustworthiness and credibility which, after all, determine the success of such a tour. It is also he who promotes the image of South Africa and who can be a true ambassador for his country.

With this background in view, I should like today to bring a matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister. It concerns the practices and malpractices of so-called professional hunters. Our wild life, game reserves, flora, scenery and sunshine are surely our most important assets. It is these assets which we have to sell to the tourists. The position is that most hunting areas of Africa have already been closed to the hunter. For some reason or other, the hunter has been deprived of almost all of them. He has been deprived of them by government decisions and the instability of countries, and on account of the high risks involved. In this process, South Africa has obtained a windfall. Through no effort of our own, and even without publicity on our part, the position is now that the hunters who previously went to other hunting grounds of Africa to practise their sport there today come to South Africa as the only country in Africa which still remains open to them. The hunters therefore come to South Africa to shoot for their trophies.

As a result of this situation, a great number of companies and groups has come into existence here to bring out hunters from overseas and then accompany them on hunting expeditions and safaris. Unfortunately, not all of these professional hunters are honest and trustworthy. It has come to my notice that many irregularities take place which not only affect the individual concerned, but also damage our country’s good name as a result of the harmful and dishonest practices of the professional hunters.

The overseas game and trophy hunters are normally rich, eminent and influential members of their community. The hunting expeditions and safaris are very costly and a lot of money is spent on such a hunting trip. I have been told that it costs R1 000 to shoot an elephant, R250 to shoot a kudu, and R150 to shoot a gnu. They pay R300 a day for their transport and accommodation. If these people are treated shabbily or are cheated, or if they feel that they have been taken in, it damages our good name. What is more: such a disgruntled hunter will advise his friends against South Africa instead of encouraging tourism to South Africa.

Several malpractices have been brought to my notice, but unfortunately I shall not have sufficient time at my disposal to mention all of them. For example, tape recordings and loudspeakers are used to lure lions from a game park. As soon as the lions are outside the game park, they are shot. Instances have been mentioned of how game is chased up with helicopters and pursued so that they can be shot. Trophy hunters went to shoot in the Caprivi last year and I have been told that after a year, the skins and horns—the trophies which they had to take with them but which had to be processed locally—had not yet reached their destination. Such conduct does great harm to our country.

I have been told that a hunter is woken up at 03h00 in a five-star hotel in Johannesburg. He is taken by car on a trip of about 90 minutes through the northern suburbs of Johannesburg until they reach a bush somewhere. Behind the bush, there is a lion which is heavily drugged. The lion is shot, photos are taken, and at 07h00 the hunter is back at his hotel where he can enjoy breakfast. [Interjections.]

Hunting expeditions are offered by these people notwithstanding the fact that their equipment is outdated and their vehicles are often in a poor condition and the accommodation and food they offer are poor. These are also things which damage our country. Game which has been wounded is not pursued and killed. I could continue in this way. In a lighter vein, I want to point out that just the other day I saw the following advertisement in a Johannesburg newspaper—

In order to prevent these malpractices and to act against unprofessional conduct, a professional hunters’ association was recently established to draw up rules and regulations in this connection. Unfortunately, the code of conduct and the rules are not legally enforcible and that is exactly the point I wish to make. I therefore plead for the inclusion of a professional hunters’ association in an Act similar to the one we have placed on our Statute Book to cover the position of tour guides. A mere professional hunters’ association without powers of enforcement means nothing.

What I advocate is that the professional hunters’ association should be registered with the Department of Tourism. A person who is not registered as such with the department should not be able to take part in such safaris or hunting expeditions in the capacity of a leader. I know it will immediately be asked: But now what about the individual farmer? Can he then no longer hunt on his own farm? Such people can surely be excluded from the provisions of the legislation.

I realize that the provincial administrations play a very important role in the conservation of our fauna and flora, and they will therefore have to be most closely involved in this matter. At this stage, therefore, I am only advocating the principle that matters should be regulated, disciplined and controlled; the finer details can be attended to later on.

Tourism is a very sensitive industry and it is therefore a pity that there are people who exploit travellers and other tourists for their own gain without keeping in mind the detrimental effects for South Africa. As I have said, the hunters from overseas are millionaires and they are influential. If such a person is satisfied here, if he has been treated well and has obtained what he expected, he advertises that in his country of origin. The publicity which he makes does not cost us anything. If he is disappointed, he will not hesitate to broadcast his disappointment far and wide.

I trust that in the short time at my disposal, I have succeeded in proving that control is essential, that the time has arrived to get the professional hunters’ association embodied in legislation, such as that which is applicable to tour guides. Professional hunters ought to be registered in terms of such legislation. If that happens, then order, discipline and control will follow. I believe this is something which we should start with immediately in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast as well as the hon. member for Kempton Park have adopted a new approach to tourism. We welcome that and we shall also ponder over it for a long time.

I should like to speak about the publicity side of tourism and consequently I am very pleased that Mr. Behrens, the Secretary for Tourism, is here today. We appreciate what Satour and other organizations have done in this connection. We are also delighted at the fact that the S.A. Airways is a wonderful instrument of publicity in this connection. It is interesting to know that the S.A. Airways, wherever it operates overseas and wherever the distinctive orange, white and blue markings of our aircraft appear, is promoting tourism to our country throughout the world. In this respect, there is a task for the international airlines in the sense that they can also, by means of their publicity material, contribute to publicity being given to South Africa so that we may also appear on the world market in their reading matter.

I also wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn said, i.e. that there is also a duty which our businessmen and other people who go overseas have to discharge. Have hon. members ever considered that on the average, 180 000 businessmen and 524 000 other South Africans travel abroad every year? In this respect, they can act as a very effective source of information and they can call at the 13 Satour offices overseas to obtain information from them with a view to further distribution. It is in this connection that the Department of Information and the Department of Foreign Affairs play form a very important part.

But it is especially during international congresses, international meetings and symposiums, that science and knowledge are exchanged, technological development is explained, professional expertise is brought to light, and peaceful consultation can take place. Most of the people who attend these congresses and symposiums, have the privilege of being members of a particular organization and they then have the opportunity of stating South Africa’s case in a particular country.

Are hon. members aware of the fact that today there is a congress bureau in the Department of Tourism and that through it the opportunity of publicizing South Africa in the field of congresses is available? Recently an international congress was held in Bangkok which was attended by 1 500 delegates. On that occasion, the language of flowers was spoken and orchids were displayed there. We South Africans made such an impression there by means of our gold medal awards and publicity campaign about South Africa as a tourist country, that the next congress about flowers, in 1981, will take place in Durban. The congress of orchids will then be held in Durban, in the garden province of our country. For that reason I say that congresses offer an important opportunity in this connection.

But tourism in South Africa must ultimately be so planned that it will not get out of hand, as in other countries such as Spain. As previous speakers have said, it must be dynamic, but it must also remain basically sound. With the planning of tourism in South Africa, our growing population and our various race groups, each with its own particular needs, must be kept in mind. We have a natural heritage and we also have a history of our own.

Places of historical interest ought to be visited, and our recreational facilities ought to be utilized. But there must be timely and drastic planning so that when the number of tourists from overseas reaches the million mark, South Africa will be prepared for that growth.

In 1973, world tourism reached its peak, and at that stage, 215 million people travelled throughout the world. They spent no less than R24 000 million, which included their travelling expenses. There were then 610 000 visitors to South Africa, and they spent approximately R200 million, travelling expenses excluded. But in 1974 we experienced the world oil and energy crisis, and a sharp decline set in and fewer people travelled. In European countries, tourism dropped to 40% less than in the previous year. We did not experience that terrific drop; we were able to survive that terrible shock because we were not wholly dependent upon tourism from abroad.

One can easily become obsessed with foreign tourism—as other countries have done—and concentrate exclusively on that. We must also promote our internal tourism. In this connection, we can benefit in different ways. Every South African who spends his holiday in South Africa and spends his money here, effects a saving in foreign exchange for South Africa. In this way, one also acquires knowledge and insight in connection with one’s own country. We have a wonderful heritage which we ought to sell to the world with dedication, and only after one has travelled through South Africa and has seen its wonderful natural scenery, can one have a love for one’s country, and can these natural resources can be developed in the best possible way.

I therefore advocate that the holiday industry should be seen in its full perspective. The holiday industry must go hand in hand with our industries, and in this way we must develop our own means of transport. But there must be systematic planning. The publicity associations must co-operate with local authorities to an increasing extent, and the private sector must also lend a hand in this regard. The tourist attractions in the particular areas should be protected.

I also want to put in a plea for the regional associations. I find it gratifying to note that the Central Transvaal Regional Committee for the Advancement of Tourism publishes such excellent brochures. I have brochures here of Brits, Middelburg, Pretoria, Warm-baths, Thabazimbi, Zeerust, Rustenburg and Witbank. But I do feel that such committees as these should liaise with the Department of Tourism so that they can take the initiative in identifying the possibilities, developing the greater potential and also involving the youth on a country-wide basis.

There ought to be systematic planning and we ought to know where our people travel and where they do not travel. We must be aware of the reasons why they do not go to certain places, and, on the other hand, only visit certain other places. We must determine the preferences and aversions of the public. It has been found that 83% of our people regularly go on holiday; 70% go on holiday annually, and 12% go every six months.

Before 1 left Johannesburg to come to the House of Assembly, I asked the Post Office to send me all my telephone accounts before I left for Parliament. I heard the woman say to the man in charge: “Sir, this is a Member of Parliament; he is going to Cape Town for a six-month holiday.” The hon. members will realize how shocked one is in such a case. Some people do not even know what Parliament is.

Furthermore, I feel that we should know which month is the most popular holiday month, and how our people travel in the different circumstances. With all these details at our disposal, we should ultimately try to establish action committees.

We should also take into account the tour guides whom the hon. member for Kempton Park has mentioned. All too often one hears that one should only believe half of what the tour guides tell one, because they do not have all the facts at their disposal. One hears that one must not believe anything the girl or the chap who sits next to one says, because they are not interested. I feel that one should only tell the best of one’s fellowmen and of one’s country, that one should be full of enthusiasm, that one should smile at the world around one and should be careful with one’s money, because if one has to spend all one’s money on someone or on worldly possessions, one comes home a broken person.

I also just want to mention that Parliament is a wonderful tourist attraction. I trust that more and more people will visit Parliament. On several tours already, I have had the opportunity to bring people to Parliament. Only last Wednesday, I had the opportunity of showing people from Rosettenville around here. I showed them the smooth tiles and they told me they were very pretty. Interesting items such as the glass doors, the woodwork and the tiles on the floors the people find attractive, and make a good impression on them.

In all these different ways, we should first sell South Africa to our own people before we can sell South Africa to the world. It is very clear to me that tourism is developing into a very great asset to our country. We should like to wish the hon. the Minister everything of the best with the vast project in which he is engaged for the benefit of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it has been indicated that those hon. members who wanted to make a contribution on tourism have now all had their turn. I now have the pleasure of reacting to their speeches. I want to tell the hon. member for Constantia that I have evidently done him an injustice. He was requested at very short notice to open the debate on this Vote on behalf of the Official Opposition, because the chairman of their study group had to be absent. For that reason, I acted wrongly in criticizing him for not attending our seminar. I want to compensate him for that by giving him the undertaking that he will receive an invitation next year, even though he is not normally the chief spokesman on this Vote.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga made several interesting suggestions. The one which I liked most was the very sincere tribute he paid to the staff of the Department of Tourism and of the statutory bodies associated with it. I want to thank him for it, because I do think that in these people we have a body of men—that is what he said— who deserve the highest respect and gratitude of South Africa.

What, no girls?

Let me finish. He referred to a body of men, but he must remember that the Department of Tourism, perhaps more than any other department of State, recognizes the remarkable qualities of the South African woman to the extent that four of our offices overseas are headed by women.

Well done!

You are not being a male chauvinist pig, are you?

No, I am not. I am not a women’s lib man either, but I am willing to recognize ability and quality irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex. The hon. member for Umhlanga complained that hon. members do not get sufficient insight into the activities and finances of Satour. First of all I want to refer him to the annual report of Satour, which gives a very thorough, rather pleasant and readable summary of the organization’s activities. If, furthermore, he refers to the annual report of the Auditor-General the hon. member will obtain all the facts concerning the finances of Satour and aspects he can use for his criticisms in his speeches in the House. There is nothing secret about it; it is available in these two publications with which I suggest the hon. member acquaint himself in the future. He made the interesting point that more should be done about in-service training of hoteliers and especially of hotel staff in South Africa. I want to assure him that the Hotel Board is at present giving proper attention to this matter and that 50% of the training we do—and this training is considerable—is done in actual practice, in the course of people’s employment in hotels. We are always looking for further opportunities to expand this form of training because we believe it is the most efficient form of training we can devise. Of course, especially in South Africa with its many illiterate people, preliminary training in institutions is very necessary. Also, if people want to specialize, they need training in the institutions we have available. However, in the normal run of events we find in-service training, as the hon. member has suggested, most useful indeed.

He drew my attention to the fact that many of the one-star hotels are really falling-star hotels. These hotels have difficulties. Our duty is to protect the public, not necessarily hotels. It has happened that some of these one-star hotels have lost their stars. In the past year we have degraded more hotels than we have upgraded. However, that is necessary, because the public interest comes first. Many of the hotels in the platteland have difficulties, of which we are aware and which should perhaps get attention. But that we can discuss on another occasion. However, we are aware of the problems the small hotels have and we shall see what can be done to assist them.

The hon. member pleaded for more facilities along our roads. I understand his feeling about it. It is a need. We have taken the matter up with the responsible authorities, mostly provincial authorities. We have been told by these provincial authorities that they have a real problem, namely vandalism. Many of these places are not only physically destroyed, but are also messed up hopelessly especially when they are used for overnight sojourning. The authorities tell me that rather than expand at the moment, in view of their experience they are very doubtful that they can even maintain the roadside halts that exist at the moment. But one does not give up because one has problems, and I am sure that we shall see what can be done, because this is really a very necessary facility.

The hon. member made sweet music in one portion of his speech when he indicated that the Department of Tourism should have more money to spend on some of its essential work. I agree with him, and I would be most grateful to have his support when the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Finance is discussed. Perhaps he can make a short essay into that debate in order to carry this idea of his further.

*In a very valuable contribution, the hon. member for South Coast pleaded for a more meaningful utilization of our game parks— especially of our national parks. He pointed out that some bodies do stress the utilization of these facilities by man, whereas other bodies again mainly stress the conservation aspect of these institutions. It is perhaps necessary that a balance should be established. There ought to be a balance. One cannot lose sight of the main purpose of these parks, and that is of course to promote nature conservation. If there are authorities that, on account of the limited extent of their parks and facilities, feel that they should limit the utilization thereof by people, we have to respect that. There is the example of the provincial authorities which he specially mentioned. I would suggest that he should first discuss the matter in detail with the provincial authorities of Natal, in order that he may become au fait with their viewpoint. After that, we can take the matter further. I think he should also have discussions with the Department of Forestry and the Department of Agriculture, because it is primarily their responsibility. The Chief Director of the Parks Board is also a member of Satour. The closest liaison exists between us and them, and I can give hon. members the assurance that we do much ensure that the facilities which they do make available to people are indeed properly utilized and appreciated by visitors to South Africa from all over the world.

The hon. member for Kempton Park spoke about professional hunters. He praised the potential which these people have for our tourism, and he also criticized some of the practices of which these people are guilty. I think that because hunting possibilities are dwindling in other parts of Africa, especially in Kenya, big game hunting is becoming more and more important as a tourist attraction in South Africa. I am pleased that the hon. member has focused our attention on that. If this facility is developed in South Africa in an orderly manner, this form of tourism can become a great source of revenue for South Africa. But there are already problems, as the hon. member indicated, because the activities of some of these people have become a source of serious concern to us. We find, amongst other things, that hunters from overseas are sometimes accompanied in South Africa by people who can by no means be regarded as professional hunters; that cases of large-scale exploitation come to light in respect of the tariffs which are charged, and that the promises in respect of trophies which must be sent to foreign hunters are not always kept. The hon. member quoted specific examples.

The Department of Tourism is therefore pleased that a Professional Hunters’ Association has recently been established in South Africa. It is hoped that the activities of this association—for example through the enforcement of a code of honour—will contribute to an improvement in the conditions. If we have to resort to legislation to ensure licensing and regulating, those people or organizations who accompany and deal with foreign tourists on hunting expeditions will definitely be brought within the purview of the legislation. The keeping of game for hunting purposes and the actual shooting thereof are of course matters which fall under the nature conservation sections of the provincial administrations, over which we have no control. Any arrangements we may make within the framework of our powers, however, will be made in consultation with those sections.

The hon. member for Rosettenville made an interesting contribution on the need for and the value of publicity for the attractions of South Africa throughout the world. I appreciate his positive contribution. As the hon. member knows, we are already doing a very great deal, and we trust that we shall be able to do still more. The hon. member specifically referred to the encouragement we should give to people to come and hold their international congresses in South Africa. The position is that in 1974, the Department of Tourism established a South African Congress Bureau. This bureau has already issued two excellent publications, which are systematically being distributed among interested persons throughout the world, and which have evoked a particularly positive reaction. During the past year or so, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of congresses held in South Africa. Important international congresses have already been held here. One of the most striking among these was the World Wilderness Congress, a congress of people who are interested in the utilization of scenery on an organized basis. They gathered in South Africa from all over the world. This means, therefore, that they not only had a very pleasant congress, but could also return with knowledge of the remarkable benefits which South Africa offers to people who still love the wilderness and who still want to experience it.

Furthermore, we also received the international Jaycees, the Junior Chambers of Commerce, here in South Africa. Their congress was one of the largest which we have ever had in the country. It was a resounding success. I was personally present at one of their functions. They have nothing but praise for South Africa. Furthermore, we also had the Aeronautics and Aerospace Medical Congress here in South Africa. This was a congress of doctors who are interested in the problems which have arisen for medical science as a result of air trips and travels in outer space. It was a particularly interesting congress, and those people were also delighted with South Africa.

Then we have also had other medical congresses here, for example the urological congress, and others. The number of congresses is steadily increasing. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Rosettenville has referred to that. It has given me the opportunity of stating what we are doing in this connection. It serves as a stimulus to us in our effort to take more comprehensive and better action in this matter.

Where the hon. member has spoken of publicity, where we in South Africa really do a great deal to attract people to this country, and where we have already proved that the attractions of South Africa are stronger in the long run than the hostile criticism which South Africa often experiences from abroad—even stronger than unfortunate incidents which sometimes occur in South Africa—one realizes that the attractions of South Africa are such that in spite of these things, people still come here time and again to visit and to view South Africa. There are of course certain matters in South Africa to which we must attend. I should now like to point out one matter in particular. It is a matter which flows from the remarks made by the hon. member for Rosettenville.

Hon. members will remember that during the discussion of the Tourism Vote last year, I made an appeal to travel agents and tour operators to make arrangements to ensure proper protection of the consumer. I am delighted—and I believe that all hon. members will be delighted—that all members of Asata—the Association of South African Travel Agents—and Satsa—the South African Tour and Safari Association—have now supplied fidelity bonds on a voluntary basis. It is difficult to say at this stage whether these fidelity bonds will offer adequate coverage in all cases, but what is most important is that the industry realizes the seriousness of the position and has given its co-operation in this way.

The Department of Tourism and Satour are now advising the travel industry abroad of the position as I have explained it, and warning them that, if they were to negotiate with travel agents and tour operators in South Africa who have not provided fidelity bonds, they would be undertaking those negotiations at their own risk. It may be, of course, that there are travel agents and tour operators in South Africa who, although they are not members of the travel industry organization, have nevertheless, on their own initiative, concluded agreements for fidelity bonds. If there are, I should appreciate it if they would contact the Department of Tourism. We should gladly convey their names to the travel industry abroad. But for several reasons, it remains advisable that some form of control should be introduced over the activities of travel agents and tour operators who are responsible for the arrangements and handling of the tourist here and abroad. Some form of control already exists in several important tourist countries of the world. It can only benefit our industry if we get into step in this respect. During a recent visit to South Africa, the Secretary-General of the Universal Federation of Travel Agency Organizations stressed the advisability of legislation in this connection, and he also discussed the matter with the Association of Travel Agents. In the meantime, the Department of Tourism has also discussed the matter with the association. The indications are that the association would welcome legislation, and we shall probably introduce legislation in this connection in the near future.

†To give hon. members an idea of current thinking in some countries and areas on this subject, I should like to quote a few extracts from the latest UFTAA newsletter. The first one relates to Australia—

The next country I should like to mention is Italy. I quote the following extract—

The following extract relates to the position in New Zealand—

The following extract relates to the countries of the EEC—

As far as the USA is concerned, I quote the following extract—

I wish to say, Sir, that the question of ensuring professional standards in our own travel industry is receiving the attention of my department. I hope that, in agreement with the industry, it will be possible to introduce suitable legislation in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether, in view of the marked improvement in the quality of hotel-keeping in South Africa, which is so important to tourism, he will not use his influence to ensure that hotel-keepers are given a wider discretion when it comes to the admission of guests, particularly in the case of the admission of guests of other colours?

I am afraid the hon. member is barking up the wrong tree, literally. This is a matter for the Department of Justice. The Department of Tourism has nothing whatsoever to do with licensed premises.

I know, but I was asking whether you would use your influence …

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to express an opinion on one of my colleagues’ departments.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 8.—“Plural Relations and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour. I want to start by wishing this Minister well in his new portfolio. I hope very much that the good intentions which he has expressed, for instance as far as beautifying the urban areas for Blacks and improving race relations, etc., are concerned, will be translated into reality. At the outset I want to commend him for having agreed, according to Press reports, to a meeting with Dr. Motlana, the head of the Committee of Ten. I understand this is to take place on 13 May. I can assure the hon. the Minister that Dr. Motlana has far more influence in Soweto than any of the gentlemen who were elected to the community council there, either in the general elections in February or in the by-elections that took place on 15 April. I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister genuinely considers a 6% poll, which was roughly what was achieved in both these elections, to be truly representative, especially when one considers that the five men, who were listed in the Nationalist Press as being the most powerful, jointly mustered something like 467 votes. I think it is interesting to note that in the Soweto by-elections the vote of the migrant workers living in hostels constituted a very high percentage of the total vote. I think that is interesting because of all the inhabitants in Soweto, I believe that they really have the least interest in some of the matters that are most deserving of highest priority interest. I am thinking, for example, of housing, because they do not live in houses. I am also thinking of education, because they have no children in Soweto or the other townships. Their children live in the homelands. There is also, of course, the question of trading licences, not a facility that the migrant worker usually enjoys. I am perfectly sure that if word had not gone out of a sort of partial endorsement of the elections by Inkatha, many of the hostel residents, who are Zulus, would not have voted at all.

Having said that, however, I do want to add that if the hon. the Minister can reach some sort of understanding with Dr. Motlana at their important meeting on 13 May, it is my belief that this would be of inestimable value in the establishment of the sound human relations to which the hon. the Minister referred during the no-confidence debate.

Before I get on to the priority matters in the report of the Department of Information, to which the hon. the Minister attached so much importance, I want to say a word or two about the departmental report. The latest report that I have is one year behind the times. It covers the period from April 1976 to March 1977. Can we not do something to speed up the issuing of departmental reports? For us to come here in May, 1978, to debate a report which is fully a year old is, in my opinion, rather ludicrous. Another thing about the report which has struck me is that, amazingly enough, the only reference in the whole report to the momentous period of urban unrest, which occurred during the period covered by this report, is contained in a few lines on page 39 in a paragraph headed Bantu Revenue Account.

That, of course, simply refers to the fact the 22 Bantu Administration Boards were hard hit financially by the damage caused to their property during the disturbances. It mentions, of course, that the major sources of revenue, which are liquor and beer outlets, had been destroyed during this period. There is not a single reference to the loss of life, etc. There is not a word said about that in the report of the department which is responsible for the welfare of these people.

There is another noteworthy omission, and this is one I have referred to on a previous occasion. I am referring to the fact that nowhere in this report is there any word about the approximately four million Africans who are permanently living on White farms. There is not a single word about them. We hear a lot about the homelands. The report is full of references to the homelands. There is some information about urban Africans although, as I have said, this information is dated and does not refer to any of the really important issues that are pertinent to the period covered by this report. There is not a single word said, however, about approximately 4 million people. I want to know whose responsibility these people are because they are certainly not mentioned in the agricultural reports, except for references to the fact that the labourers are there. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether they are not his responsibility because I believe that these people have to be somebody’s responsibility. This is a section of the population to whom minimum wages do not apply, to whom maximum working hours do not apply and whose mobility is severely limited.

Now I come to the Department of Information’s list of “constraints and vexations” amongst the Blacks in Soweto, an aspect to which the hon. the Minister has attached considerable importance. I want to start with housing which is, of course, right at the top of the priority list that the department compiled. This is not surprising because those who know anything about the urban townships know that there is a parlous state of overcrowding in all of them. Soweto is indeed an indoor squatter camp. That is what it is today. Any number between 16 and 20 people are crammed into these four-roomed houses because of the parlous shortfall in housing. WRAB has itemized 12 000 houses on its priority list. They have simply phased out another 10 000 houses appearing on a secondary list. They know they just cannot cope and so they have simply phased them out, pretending that they do not exist at all. We have also been told that of the R275 million which is being earmarked for a crash programme of Black housing over the next five years about R50 million is for the urban areas. I presume that Soweto will get its fair share of this, because there is nothing in WRAB’s estimates for the year for housing in Soweto itself. There is an amount set aside, but it is not for Soweto but for the other townships that fall under WRAB. What worries me is that this R50 million, which after all is a drop in the ocean when one thinks of the shortfall of houses and which has to cover all the urban Black townships, will not only be for houses but also for hostels and schools. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some more detailed figures of how the R50 million is going to be used. I have a horrible feeling that far too little is going to be allocated for family housing and that more is going to be allocated for hostel accommodation.

I am not going to go into the question of why the shortfall was ever allowed to reach the horrendous figure it has reached. We know perfectly well that we are supposed to provide a minimum of 2 000 houses per year to meet the natural increase in Soweto alone. However, something like 422 houses were in fact built last year, 441 the year before and 761 the year before that. There is, therefore, a hopeless backlog and even if every penny of the R50 million were spent on housing I am afraid it would not be enough to wipe out that backlog. I want to suggest very seriously to the hon. the Minister that he should consider re-introducing a site-and-service scheme so that Africans can at least put up their own shelters pro tem, and will at least have sewerage and water laid on at the sites. I believe this to be a very important emergency measure which the hon. the Minister should consider. I want to remind him that that is the measure that was used by this Government in the ’fifties to clear up the tremendous backlog that existed immediately after the Second World War and the awful conditions that existed at Moroka and the other squatter camps.

I now want to say something about the 99-year leasehold system which has been greeted with such enthusiasm by all and sundry, including, I might add, myself. I have to say at once that my enthusiasm has waned since I have examined the scheme in a little more detail. First of all, I must tell the hon. the Minister that he himself has dampened my ardour considerably. He has done so because of the quaint remarks he has been making about the status of urban Blacks. In a television interview, which I watched with much interest, a few weeks ago, the hon. the Minister said that Blacks in the urban areas would be “taamlik permanent”, i.e. fairly permanent. It is rather like the young lady who said she was a little bit pregnant. That is what I was reminded of. In a subsequent newspaper interview the hon. the Minister used another quaint expression when he said that the Blacks would have “permanence in inverted commas”, whatever that might mean. In the same interview the hon. the Minister was asked why he would not grant freehold and he stated—I thought it an astonishing revelation—that he considered that ownership of land would lead to a justifiable demand for political rights. He does not consider that mere occupation, even on a 99-ear basis, a “fairly permanent” basis, would lead to that justifiable demand. I wonder where the hon. the Minister gets that curious idea. He told us that the system of 99-year leases was based on a British system. It is, of course, very widely used in Britain, but does the hon. the Minister really believe that all those millions of British citizens with 99-year leases do not enjoy the franchise in Britain and that freehold ownership by, say, a German foreigner of a house in Johannesburg, since he has the right to own a house there, gives him the right to vote although he is not a South African citizen? I must say that the hon. the Minister is a source of never-ending surprises to me. Sometimes he talks such eminent good sense and then he goes through the Looking Glass, like Alice in Wonderland. Then he talks like Humpty Dumpty. Mr. Chairman, you will remember what Humpty Dumpty said: “When I use a word it means just what I want it to mean, neither more nor less. Who is to be master, that is the question?”

What happened to Humpty Dumpty?

We all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty! Citizenship, I must inform the hon. the Minister, bestows the right of franchise in any normal society, not the ownership of land. The hon. the Minister says that if Nationalist policy is taken to its full logical conclusion, as he told us during the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Amendment Bill debate earlier this year, as far as Blacks are concerned there will not be one Black man with South African citizenship. This is the numbers game; they vanish, as each homeland becomes independent, from our demographic statistics. Bearing that in mind, I think he can give freehold with impunity because citizenship is going to be phased out anyway! I want to remind the hon. the Minister that this means that by the year 2000 South Africa will be inhabited by some 47 million people, and that excludes the Transkei. There will be 6,6 million Whites, 4,7 million Coloureds, 1,3 million Indians, which means that there will be 12,6 million citizens in South Africa. There will be 35 million Africans, half of whom will be in the homelands and half of whom will still be living temporarily/permanently, but at any rate physically, in South Africa. In other words, there will be 17,5 million foreigners. This means that South Africa will be a very interesting country in the year 2000 as there will be more foreigners living in South Africa than there will be citizens. Connie in Wonderland indeed!

Secondly, my enthusiasm for the 99-year leases was dampened when I learned about the impossible obstacles that have been placed in the path of well-meaning employers who want to help their employees get these 99-year lease houses. First of all, the hon. the Minister must look into the whole pattern of bureaucracy in this country. There are bureaucrats who are being deliberately obstructive as far as this is concerned. Secondly, the stands that are allocated are far too small for decent housing and that is what the employers want to provide, decent housing. The stands are 40 feet by 70 feet and that is too small; there is not even room for a garage. The minimum cost of building a decent house is estimated at R7 000. However, quite summarily WRAB has added another R1 000 to this figure per stand for infrastructure. What happens to all the money that employers pay on the Bantu Services Levy which is supposed to provide infrastructure in the urban areas? I believe that an amount of R26 million was handed over by the Johannesburg city council to WRAB when it took over round about 1972. That is money which had been collected for the erection of infrastructure.

However, to this sum of R1 000 must be added an electricity connecting fee, that is if electricity—I cannot believe it—is ever going to become available, of R280, plus R130 for sewerage and water connection. This adds R1 400 to the costs before the actual building starts. That is a very heavy burden indeed even on middle class Blacks for whom such houses are intended. Then let us take the individual Blacks who want to buy the houses that they already occupy and get 99-year leasehold. The standard four-roomed house, the 51/6 house with four rooms, an outside lavatory and tap, used to be valued at R400 10 years ago, while it is now valued at R1 750. Prospective buyers must pay a deposit of 10%, R175, plus R80 for the water meter. The repayments come to about R14 per month, at 9,5% interest calculated over 30 years, plus site rental, which is already R11,50 per month, which has to be paid in perpetuity. It is all a hopeless burden for people who are battling against escalating costs caused by inflation in South Africa. One must add the levies to this. There are lodger’s fees for example. Every son who is working must pay a lodger’s fee of R1 per month if he is living with his parents in Soweto. I believe this is something the hon. the Minister must look into because otherwise we are going to have a repetition of the ghastly events of 1976 and 1977. Such unrest would spell “finis” to the hope of any restoration of confidence in South Africa’s future.

The third reservation that I have about the 99-year lease is a very important reservation, and it arises from the possible consequences of section 2 of the Bantu Laws Amendment Act which was passed earlier this session. These 99-year leases can be bequeathed, I believe. What is going to happen to the children born after independence of the homelands, once they have become foreigners? Many of the parents presently owning homes and to whom children are going to be born, now after the date of independence of, say, Transkei and Bophuthatswana, will have children who are foreigners, falling under the provisions of section 12 of the Bantu Laws Amendment Act, and they therefor cannot inherit those houses. Will the hon. the Minister please go into the matter to see whether something can be done to safeguard the rights of inheritance of the children of those people? This is a very important issue for building societies before they will grant loans and it is also a very important issue for prospective buyers of the 99-year leases. They must know about their rights before they go into the very expensive business of buying these houses.

The hon. the Minister should also very carefully examine the whole appearance of Soweto as it is today. I know that he has been there, that he has addressed the community council and that he has promised to make Soweto “the most beautiful Black city in Africa.” I commend him for these ambitions and I hope that he is going to be able to do it. I would also urge the hon. the Minister to do something about speeding up the electrification of Soweto which, to my mind, is an absolute sine qua non, and without which one cannot begin to beautify anything, because one is not even able to see what is going on there after dark. In the second place the whole fabric of the township has deteriorated markedly since WRAB took over, concerning for example, the maintenance of roads—they are in an appalling condition nowadays—refuse removal and matters of that kind. Since the city council gave up providing those services, there has been marked deterioration as far as Soweto is concerned. Why does WRAB have to spend roughly 38% of its income on salaries and allowances? Why does it have to rely on such an enormous percentage of its revenue from liquor outlets? This is another very bad aspect of life in the townships. These areas must be subsidized by central revenue and what I say about Soweto, applies equally to every urban Black township in the country. I use Soweto as my model, because it happens to be the one area that I am most familiar with and because it is the biggest Black city in Africa south of the Sahara. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will devote a considerable amount of time in trying to improve conditions in that area.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. member for Houghton acting as the chief spokesman for the Official Opposition for the first time today. This was the only difference in comparison with her previous performances. I do want to add that I did not discover the same degree of bitterness in her speech this time, and that she even contributed something positive here and there.

And I love you too! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton will make me blush as red as a beetroot here in the House if she says that to me again!

If I have interpreted the hon. member’s arguments correctly, she was particularly concerned about the increase in the cost of housing, etc. In passing, I want to put in the right perspective the question of the cost of housing and especially of services like water, etc., in the case of urban Black residential areas. Quite often, the impression is created that the inhabitants of the urban Black residential areas cannot afford any tariff increases at all. The hon. member for Houghton has just referred to Soweto, and she concentrated chiefly on Soweto’s problems and that is why I should like to provide the following interesting figures: The average family income in Soweto amounted to almost R190 per month in 1975. In contrast to this, the minimum subsistence level of a family in Soweto is R109 per month. This leaves a surplus of R81 per month. What is more: In Soweto, the average inhabitant spends only 7,7% of his income on housing. From an American survey conducted in developing and developed countries in the world, it appears that the average expenditure on housing varies between 15% and 35% of the family income. In contrast to this, the average expenditure on housing in Soweto is 7,7% of the family’s income. It is interesting to note that the largest amount, viz. 38% of the family income, is spent on food.

Another statement which I want to make is that if one takes a look at the position of the Black residents of the urban areas—I want to mention the case of Soweto once again—we find that, in real terms, there has been a considerable improvement in their position. I think the hon. member for Houghton will agree with me in this regard. In 1970, the average annual income per family in Soweto was R1 043. In the five-year period up to 1975, the average income increased to R2 273. This is an increase of 117% and if one compares this increase to the increase in the cost of living, one sees that there was a real increase, i.e. a real improvement in these people’s position, of 39,1%. If one reduces this figure to financial terms, it means, of course, that the income of the inhabitants of Soweto has doubled.

I should like to say a few things in connection with allegations made here in the House by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition during the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here now. [Interjections.] I accept that he cannot be here. In any event, he said that we should talk to the Black people in the country as our equals when we negotiate with them. When I read what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said during his speech on the Prime Minister’s Vote, it seems to me as if this is no longer the right thing either. I want to refer to column 4402 of Hansard, 11 April 1978. With reference to the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on the subject of land, he said—

With reference to the negotiations with Bophuthatswana and Transkei he goes on to say—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s objection to these negotiations between the Prime Minister and the Minister on the one hand and the homeland leaders on the other is that they did not negotiate as equals since South Africa enjoys sovereign independence, while Transkei and Bophuthatswana were not yet independent at that stage. The hon. member also said that one cannot negotiate if the parties are not equal, if therefore, they are unequal. The inequality allegedly lies in the fact that we are a sovereign independent state, and they are not. The question which I now ask myself is how we should negotiate with the Black people in this country. Must we give up our own sovereignty before we can negotiate with them? Who must we call in and use as an arbitrator? Must we call in Dr. Waldheim or the UN to put the Black people on an equal footing with ourselves? On the other hand, the question arises whether we should first make these people independent so that they can achieve a state of equality before we can negotiate.

Later on in the same speech, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition contradicted himself completely. He said (Hansard, 11 April 1978, col. 4409)—

The argument which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is advancing here is that one cannot negotiate with the Black people if they are not equal to oneself. However, he also says that if one negotiates after independence, it creates an international conflict situation. The Official Opposition is always talking about a national convention which we should hold here in South Africa at which the problems of South Africa should be ironed out. I now want to ask the Official Opposition: How are they going to negotiate with the Black people of this country and regard them as equals while we are sovereign and the Black people are not yet sovereign? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity that the hon. member for Lydenburg could not complete his speech. He was asking what the policy of the PFP was. I should very much like to link up with what he said, because I am just as curious as he to know what their policy is. I do not want to be unnecessarily pessimistic, but I think that he and I must be realistic and realize that more people than we have tried in the past to discover from them what their policy is and have not succeeded.

Last week, during the debate on the Indian Affairs Vote, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs literally begged the Official Opposition to tell him what their policy was. In the discussion of his Vote, the hon. the Prime Minister pleaded in vain to these people to tell him what their policy was, and he did at least achieve some success. He said (Hansard, 13 April 1978, col. 4642)—

You will get them.

Now the hon. member says that we shall get them. However, I will not allow myself to be fobbed off again. When exactly shall we get the answer to this?

You will get the answer during this session.

The hon. the Chief Whip, the hon. member for Groote Schuur, associated himself with this later on and said (Hansard, 13 April 1978, col. 4642)—

I had hoped that the chief spokesman on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Houghton, the only one who has had the privilege of the half-hour, would avail herself of this opportunity to keep the promise of her Chief Whip and tell us what their policy is.

Let me just say in passing, at the risk of her saying “I love you too” to me as well, that this afternoon I listened to one of the calmest speeches by the hon. member I have heard in this House so far. Actually, my argument with her is not about the things which she said. True, there were a few contentious statements, for instance the statement that Soweto is the biggest squatter camp in the country, and other statements of the kind which were somewhat irresponsible.

However, in general it was calm. My argument with her actually concerns those things she did not say, that opportunity she did not make use of today to take us into her confidence and tell us what the PFP’s policy as regards the Black people is. Even the NRP, the party of the hon. member for Durban Point, addressed a similar request to the Official Opposition. This party has set an example to the PFP. The Chief Whip of the NRP demonstrated to us what their policy is by means of a whole set of little balls. The fact that their policy is now even more mysterious and inexplicable to us, does not really matter. At least they made a valiant effort. I may stand on a platform and say that I do not know what their policy is, but I shall not be able to say that they did not make a valiant effort to explain their policy.

We have not been able to get anything out of the PFP thus far during this entire session. There has been no reference to their policy. Or not quite nothing. I spent literally hours reading various Hansards just to find some declaration of policy somewhere by the PFP. There were one or two members of the PFP who, perhaps in an unguarded moment, just lifted the comer of the veil so that we could keep at the secrets of their policy. If we read these few statements in conjunction with statements made overseas, fragmentary as they may be—and they are fragmentary because they took into account the mass media which brought the statements made overseas here into our living-rooms—it is to some extent possible to piece together a jigsaw puzzle and construct a sort of PFP policy. Years ago we accused the old UP of having one policy for the city and another for the rural areas. It seems as if we have to accuse the PFP today of having a policy which they advocate abroad, while they are totally silent about their policy here at home. One can really ask jealously: What is there abroad which we do not have here? One has to match up fragments like Sherlock Holmes. However, it remains an impossible task because the more one tries to piece the fragments together, the more contradictions one discovers. In my own way, I tried to research what the PFP policy is as regards one thing, viz. how this Parliament would look as regards the representation of Black people if they, the PFP, should come into power. The hon. member for Parktown said during this session (Hansard, col. 996)—

I tried to analyse this statement by the hon. member for Parktown, and I think it is fair to deduce that the hon. member says that the Black man must come into his own politically in this Parliament. I think this is in line with statements we have had from other hon. members of the PFP, viz. that they advocate a unitary State. Secondly, the hon. member told us that there were to be only a few dark faces in this House. There will be 165 Whites here, and a small minority of Black people.

You are talking absolute nonsense again.

The hon. member was very good in the analysis. He must now give me another statement of the position of which the hon. member for Parktown spoke, viz. that there would be a few dark faces in this House. What does “a few” mean? Surely a few is not 165. Does a few mean fewer or not?

I wish you would come to the Vote.

As against this statement by the hon. member for Parktown, we have the programme of principles of the PFP. I quote what they say—

Full citizenship for all South Africans! Only last week the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said here in the House—it was actually by means of an interjection—that everyone should have a vote. [Interjections.]

Do you not agree with that?

However, if one pieces all these separate fragments together, one really has a problem in trying to construct a policy from them. We are dealing here with three sets of data. The one is that there are 19 million Black people in South Africa. Secondly, we are dealing with the statement by the hon. member for Parktown, viz. that we should have a few dark faces in this House. Thirdly, we have the unequivocal statement in the PFP’s programme of principles: “Full citizenship for all South Africans regardless of race or colour.”

This is where wisdom is called for. How is one to make this sound plausible? Here are two statements which are diametrically opposed to one another. Therefore, we must reconcile the irreconcilable. Elementary logic tells us that the hon. member for Parktown and the programme of principles cannot both be correct at the same time. The question is therefore: Who is correct? Is the hon. member for Parktown correct, in talking about a few dark faces, or is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout correct, in saying that everyone must have a vote? Who is correct? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the former hon. member for Durban North, Mr. Harry Pitman, the Natal leader… [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the second half-hour?

I would also like to welcome the hon. the Minister to his new portfolio. He is a person who brings a great freshness of vision and, I think, a great deal of hope to a situation which has become bedevilled over a period of years. I think a lot of people expect a great deal from the hon. the Minister. I want to say that I regret very much missing the television interview the hon. the Minister gave, because he …

He was simply a star!

He expressed some very interesting and challenging concepts which, I hope, we will be able to debate here this afternoon. I welcome the opportunity of debating the policy of the hon. the Minister. I also welcome the chance we have, as far as is possible, to put our own policy as a contrast to the one put forward by the hon. the Minister. I think a debate like this is the ideal opportunity. It has been that in the past, because some of the best debates we have ever had in this hon. House have been on the Department of Bantu Administration, as it used to be called. At least one could exchange views and try to find out from the Minister concerned what his view was of the future of the millions upon millions of people whom history has given into his hands. I hope that in this debate he will tell us what exactly he sees as the future of the people we are going to talk about this afternoon.

We have tried to assemble a model to illustrate … [Interjections.] We have made an effort, and we have put our policy in a form in which, we think, it can be expressed in a way in which people will be able to follow it. We hope that the Government will undertake the same effort to do exactly the same sort of thing. I wish to use my model to put some very pertinent questions to the hon. the Minister.

*Right at the outset I should like to apologize for standing here with old Tinky and showing it to this House once again. [Interjections.] This is the last time this session that I am going to use it [Interjections.] On the basis of this model I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a few very relevant questions. The model enables me to illustrate the questions so as to enable hon. members opposite, and the hon. the Minister, to see the whole matter in perspective and to understand it properly. [Interjections.] I can give hon. members the assurance that they are going to hear a lot about this model in future. We will not have finished with it today. It is still going to make an appearance frequently in future.

The hon. the Prime Minister said on occasion that it was only Einstein and I who understood the model. Well, Einstein is dead, and that is why it benefits hon. members to listen to me and to give me the opportunity to explain it to them. [Interjections.] The questions I want to put to the hon. the Minister, relate to pluralism and the question of leadership. When one speaks of leadership, one comes very close to the question of the future and the existence of the White population here in South Africa. In this regard we can use the case of Soweto as an example. It has been ascertained that 16% of the people living in Soweto range themselves completely on the side of the Whites. 39% of them associate themselves with the homelands. They are not involved in any sense in the way of life of the Whites or in city life as led in Soweto.

Who made that survey?

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wants to know who undertook that survey, I can tell him that it was done by the National Institute for Personnel Research. It is a public finding.

Why did you not say so?

I am telling the hon. member now. If he would keep quiet and stop interjecting, he would hear who did that survey.

*I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Black city dwellers are actually the key to the position not only of the Whites, but also of the Western world. Everything we stand for and everything we represent here in South Africa, faith itself, amounts to the issue of the Black city dwellers and what we are going to do with them.

†In this present situation in which we find ourselves, the Third World is finding itself to an increasing extent in a situation of stress and strain as far as the West is concerned. There is an increasing disillusionment on the part of the Western world with the Third World. This disillusionment stems from the fact that immense amounts of money have been poured into the Third World. The attempts which have been made to establish working democracies in the Third World have failed one after the other, and we are finding a total rethink beginning in the hearts and minds of the people of the Western world. Governments and the voters themselves are openly beginning to query the efforts that have been made on behalf of the Third World. They have particularly begun to question the injection of hard-earned and badly needed money into the countries of the Third World, where it simply disappears into the sand without any tangible result being shown. What the Western World is looking for and what it badly needs is the successful participation by a Black population in the sort of system that we have set up. That is what the Western world needs to recover confidence in its own message and in the things it stands for. It needs new confidence in the very beliefs within which we live and move and have our being. That is why I say that here in South Africa, and in Soweto, for instance, it is so terribly important that a success should be made of incorporating Black people into the system in which we ourselves operate.

*I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Blacks in the city of Soweto are a new power factor here in the Republic of South Africa. The Minister told us that it was his job to work himself out of a job. This is a challenge the hon. the Minister has put himself. He said he was going to make Soweto the most beautiful city on the whole Continent of Africa. However, I should like to ask him this question: For whom is he going to make that city so beautiful? For the stranger in Jerusalem? For the stranger here in our midst? For the stranger here in our laager? For whom is he going to make that city so beautiful? The hon. the Minister also said his vision was that the whole concept of “South Africa” as it existed today, was going to disappear. The whole of South Africa as we know it, he said, would just disappear. Now I want to ask him this: Why? Why is this necessary? Is that the final price we as Whites have to pay for the policy of the Government? Are we to sacrifice South Africa itself as part of that policy? As I see things that hon. Minister is the leading force in the NP at present. I am of the opinion that he is the man who is going to take up the reins to an increasing extent. He is the person who is going to set the tune in the NP. I think we can have a fruitful debate with him on this matter.

That is an ugly thing!

No, I do not see it as ugly. Our model is based on the structure of pluralism. We have tried to set up pluralism, as it exists in this country, as the structure. It is the hon. the Minister himself who is talking so much about pluralism now, but we just cannot understand how he can get so near to the truth of pluralism and yet fail to see the whole truth. Therefore, I want to show this model to the hon. the Minister because he was not here last time. I just want to add that it is not essential that it happen in this way. We are suggesting it as a point of discussion or a debating point, and we hope to get something from that side of the House which will indicate how they see the matter, especially from the hon. the Minister, who in my opinion, is going to play such an important role in the future of this country.

What is the hon. the Minister going to do with the Black people in this country, the people in the homelands that are not independent, in the homelands that are independent and in the Black neighbouring states?

What is their place going to be in the whole set-up in South Africa? We have a very clear view of the matter. I should like to show it to the hon. the Minister. It is very simple. I can see that the hon. the Prime Minister no longer concerns himself about this matter as it is no longer his business, but the hon. the Minister and all of us will have to be able to get along with the Black man in the urban areas in our lifetime.

I shall buy it from you for my young boy!

That is a typical answer from the NP. They leave the whole future of our country to their children or grand children. However, they are not prepared to debate these matters here with us as adults. [Interjections.]

†That is the trouble. The members of the NP are not prepared to meet the challenges of today. They are bogged down in the policies of yesterday. That hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister are typical examples of that kind of thinking. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that we have a common living area. White people, Coloureds, Indians and Black people in the urban areas like Soweto are there. Not all of them associate •themselves with us, but a portion of them do. Some of them are tending in our direction but they have not yet come to a final decision. The pressure of Black Africa on those people is therefore going to determine whether they move our way and whether we shall be able to hold out here or not, and it is the policy of that hon. Minister which is going to decide that for them and for us. For that reason I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that in the common living area, which we shall share, there is an absolute demand for some method of accommodation. The hon. the Minister says that in five years’ time there will be no Black people in South Africa who are South African citizens. They will have no rights and no claims upon us. In fact, they will have nothing to do with us at all. [Interjections.] Well, if he said three years, then I misheard him. He nevertheless mentioned a certain number of years. I want to put it to that hon. Minister that the Black people living in Soweto are the key to the future, not only of the White people but also of the Black people, the Western world and the whole of Africa. If he therefore thinks that he can simply avoid them or cast them out into the outer reaches of intergalactic space, he is making the most serious mistake it is possible for any one to make in our country, South Africa. That, however, is not all.

There are also the people to whom I have already referred, the people in the homelands. Those are the people who are on their way to independence or who have achieved independence, people who are going to want something to associate themselves with.

What is that little ball, Bill?

That is you, Pietie!

†I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that there has to be some form of association between the Black Governments-in-being in Southern Africa, and let me raise the issue of leadership personally and pertinently with the hon. the Minister. Let him understand what has happened with Botswana. When I said, in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote, that a political structure of some sort was essential, he said that that was quite unnecessary because economic links would hold us together. What has happened in the case of Botswana with which we have an economic link? Where is Botswana today? It is in the orbit of the five front-line presidents. Where is Lesotho today? We have an economic link with Lesotho, but they are in the orbit of the OAU because we have failed to provide a link for them through which they can meaningfully associate. If the hon. the Minister and his party with their vision fail to take the leadership which is going to make of us part of the nucleus about which all of these people are going to revolve, what then? There is no such thing in nature as an element all by itself. Nothing floats independently. Everything from the smallest atom to the stars and galaxies themselves revolve around some central point, some nucleus, some point of attraction. If the NP and that hon. Minister are not going to participate in leadership at that level, someone else will. If the hon. the Minister refuses to accept that he has a part to play in that situation, he is going to leave the leadership of the whole of Southern Africa open, he is going to leave it a vacuum for someone else to fill. It could be the PAC, the Communist Party, the BPC or anybody else, but the hon. the Minister, the Government and the White people whom we represent will not be a party to that. What will the result of that be?

In this regard one can look at any molecular structure one likes. If we are to abandon the Black population in the urban areas, with all that will follow, the weight of the body they represent in the molecular model will be such that the Indian and the Coloured will never be able to remain in association with us: They will be drawn into the orbit being followed by the urban Blacks and, indeed, the White man is going to be sucked into that orbit at a tremendous disadvantage to himself. Why is this necessary? Why should we give away the whole of our future in that way, knowing it is going to happen? That is the question we want to debate with the hon. the Minister. I am not saying that the model we propose is a totally fixed pattern. We are simply putting it forward as a suggestion. This is how we see our country as a federal/ confederal structure. It is a real debating point and a real political prospect. It is an attempt to find a real solution or, at least, an attempt to find what has been called a settlement of the outstanding differences between the different groups of people in South Africa. If one sees the situation as we see it, this Parliament, which is a unitary Parliament, the one thing the nations of Europe taught us, has failed. It is admitted by everybody here that it has failed. The Government themselves are phasing it out. The unitary State has failed.

In view of what has happened in Transkei, are we not entitled to ask at the very least whether the policy the Government proposes of giving independence to those bodies is one which is going to lead us into far greater danger than the situation we find ourselves in at present? We say there is a third alternative which is the alternative of the model I have shown to the hon. the Minister, viz. a federal arrangement with a common living area and a confederal arrangement which will bind us together around a nucleus of attraction and in terms of which each body will follow a path of its own about the nucleus. Separate from the others, it will follow its own path without conflict or clashes, but working to a common purpose. I think that that third alternative is something that deserves from the hon. the Minister every consideration. If the hon. members opposite think it is a joke and want to laugh about it, they are quite entitled to do so. I come here as a person who thinks that this country is looking for leadership. Leadership is what the country wants. We find ourselves in a situation today that I do not think the Government are providing us with a real vision for the future. They have a vision according to which the Coloured man, the White man and the Indian will live together in a certain community while everyone who is Black will have to go off into some other, unknown orbit. This cannot happen. [Interjections.] The hon. members can say “no”, but the hon. the Prime Minister himself said there would be no link on a political basis between us.

No, man!

The hon. member can say “No, man”, but the hon. the Prime Minister himself said that. I heard him say it.

It is true: They will be totally independent States.

I want to say that in that situation there is absolutely no leadership forthcoming from the Government. As far as I am concerned, if we are looking for leadership and inspiration, it is going to come from the sort of thinking that we are putting forward here in this little party of ours. It at least offers a hope to the people of South Africa.

*Mr. Chairman, at a critical stage during the Battle of Blood River Andries Pretorius said to his men: “Open up the laager.” That is what we need in this country now, a call to the people to open up the laager. [Interjections.] That decision, taken when there was little hope, was followed by a tremendous victory. I want to give hon. members on the opposite side of the House my assurance that that kind of call can still give us victory today.

†We can achieve a victory against the mental forces, the antagonism and the hostility of Black Africa if we are prepared to move out of this position … to go out to the people and to accept the Black people of Soweto as part and parcel of the situation in which we find ourselves. That is the challenge we put to the hon. the Minister. He must debate it with us. How can we totally exclude that important element of our population who are at the turning point of history in our time? How can the hon. the Minister simply wave his wand and say they will all be citizens of another country, that they will have nothing to do with us and that they will all be content and happy in a situation like that?

Shakespeare said: “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.” That tide is here now with us. The hon. the Minister is in a situation where he will either take that tide, catch it and go ahead, taking the whole country with him, or he is going to miss it. If he misses it, leadership is going to pass out of the hands of this Parliament, it is going to pass out of the hands of this people and is going to pass into the hands of other people in South Africa who are not represented in this House. What the country is looking for is a vision. They want a new vision, something which will hold out hope for them, something which will reconcile the things which so far the NP has found to be irreconcilable, and that is security and innovation. The Government is trying innovation. They are going in a certain direction, but they are going only that far. I ask the hon. the Minister how it is that he, being the man that he is, a man of sincerity, a man of integrity, a man who names the name of the Lord in his daily going about—and for this I give him full credit and support him completely—comes so close to the vision, but yet cannot go that one step further because it departs from the principle that his party has been working on these many years, a principle which, in my opinion, has failed entirely to meet the need that we see in our country today?

Mr. Chairman, having looked at and having listened to the hon. member for Mooi River, I just want to say it was all “balls”.

*Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River is a member for whom I have a very great appreciation and understanding. His contributions, in general, are always an attempt to make a contribution towards solving the problems in Southern Africa. However, I think that the one basic problem of that hon. member and his party, is that they expect one to be able to maintain a specific identity in Africa today by sharing one’s power, authority and sovereignty, and that one will ultimately be able to maintain one’s identity in this way. That train of thought has already disappeared from all responsible, thinking circles in Africa. In the years which lie ahead, the hon. member and his party will disappear, too, either by being taken up by the PFP or by being incorporated in the NP.

Today I should like to exchange some ideas about the question of human relations within Southern Africa. However, before I come to that, there are a few other things which I should like to refer to. Today we heard the hon. member for Houghton talking for the umpteenth time and I think it is very clear to all the people of South Africa that the PFP is no longer concerned about the question whether there is going to be a Black majority in South Africa. I think that we and they have already decided that question for ourselves. The question which the PFP must answer for South Africa, is what form that Black majority Government is going to take. This is all that is relevant as regards those hon. members. Like my hon. colleagues who preceded me, I should very much like the PFP to answer a question, viz.: Which people among the Southern Bantu—as we classify them—are going to govern this country, and what is the position going to be as regards people who are concerned about their identity, their cultural values, their language, etc.? What is their place going to be in Africa? This is the question which the hon. member for Rondebosch, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and others must answer. Whether they want a Black majority Government or not, is not at all relevant. I shall leave the PFP at that for a while.

I should like to express a few words of deep appreciation towards the former Minister of—as he was known—Bantu Administration and Development. A younger, new generation are very often inclined to let the ideas and labour of their predecessors pass into oblivion. My generation is a very good link between the previous generation and the generations ahead. That is why I, for my part, want to express special appreciation for the work which former Minister M. C. Botha did for many years in South Africa. I feel his value lies, or lay, in the fact that he was a man of great integrity and that he was really a principal thinker, i.e. he was true to his principles. Thirdly, he was a man of exceptional idealism and, fourthly, a man with an exceptional capacity for work. Probably future generations will, and his opponents could, criticize him in many spheres, but these values, which were characteristic of him, are the finest values which could be held out to any leader and any member of Parliament. That is why I express my personal appreciation towards him, and I am convinced that future generations will write the name of M. C. Botha in the annals of nation building in South Africa, along with the names of Gen. J. B. M. Hertzog, Dr. D. F. Malan and Dr. H. F. Verwoerd. In the same breath I must also say that the man who succeeded Minister M. C. Botha, Dr. Connie Mulder, is a man with the same talents and gifts, and I personally trust that his talents, too, will be at the service of the peoples of Southern Africa for a long time.

The general propaganda of the liberal world, and especially of the PFP, is that all unsound human relations, in Southern Africa, individually and at group level, began with the NP and the Whites within the NP.

No. That is not true.

They allege that all poor human relations and all threats to the continued existence of good ethnic relations in South Africa, will cease the day the NP disappears and the White man leaves Southern Africa.

No. That is not true.

I should like to link my view in this regard with that of an official—he has been dead for many years now—who was attached to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. In this regard I am thinking of the deceased Mr. C. W. Prinsloo. When I was still a young student, he wrote an article in which he said that ethnic relations and human relations in South Africa had improved under the NP. It was strange for me to learn something like this as far back as the ’fifties. That article took one back to how Southern Africa looked before the arrival of the White man. To me that article is still an indication of the improved relations being formed in South Africa, as regards the White and the Black man too. However, the problem experienced in this regard, is that the liberal newspapers like the Daily Mail and other like newspapers which one finds in South Africa and throughout the world, have imposed a state of siege on healthy, free thought throughout the world. The liberal mass media have simply besieged and covered up sound ideas so that groups of people cannot learn from one another, and when they do learn something, the mass media make sure that it is only the detrimental things. In Southern Africa, where the NP has been in power for 30 years now, there are tens of thousands of cases every day on our streets, in our labour world, in our economy, in our churches and everywhere else, where tens of thousands of people of different colours, White and Black too, meet one another and the best of relations prevail between 90% of the people of Southern Africa. When I say that there are good human relations in South Africa, specifically under the NP Government, I also want to express my great appreciation towards the Black people. 90% of the Black people are responsible people, people who also contribute towards good human relations in these meetings and contact situations with the White man. I want to say that the mass communication media, especially those of the PFP, never write about the good human relations which do exist in South Africa. Incidents which take place in South Africa, and which may take place to a much greater extent in other countries than here, are big news here and presented as common-place events in Southern Africa.

I feel that if we in South Africa—and this includes the PFP—want to bring about good human relations, the liberal world will also have to show the good, decent side of the White man to those people, more than they do now.

I have a book here which I should like to recommend to friends in the PFP. The title of the book is Die African National Congress en sy aktiwiteite aan die Witwatersrand vanaf 1912. I want to tell the world and the House today that the clashes and political agitation on the part of the Black people did not originate in 1948. It goes back even as far as the previous century, and the amazing thing is that the Black political agitators worked hand in hand with the White political agitators. If we in South Africa could have a situation where we could have better control over the White leftists, for instance the extreme leftist Press, like the Rand Daily Mail, and many other White elements in South Africa, we will be able to eliminate much unrest and ignorance prevailing among the Black people. The request which we want to make in South Africa today, is that we as Whites should put a guard before our mouths. We shall have to control ourselves, because the greatest and the best characteristic of civilization is self-control. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik spoke about ethnic relations, and contrasted the attitude of the PFP with what the NP does in that regard. I should like to elaborate on the latter idea, viz. what the NP does to promote ethnic relations. The accusation is often levelled at us on this side of the House by the PFP that when we conduct dialogue with the Black people, our relations with them are poor. However, I want to point out that when we talk to the Black people we do so with a different attitude and a different disposition. When we talk to them, it is not necessary for us to ask them to take our hands. It is not necessary for us to crawl to them. Our attitude is right. We go to them with the attitude that we want to do the best for the Black people and at the same time want to do the best for ourselves too. We co-exist with the Black people in the country and it is important for us as Whites, as well as for the Black people, that there should be a striving towards what is best for both population groups in South Africa. The idea that there is no dialogue at all between White and Black in South Africa, is a misunderstanding and bears no relation to reality.

In this connection I want to refer to how our present hon. Prime Minister gave us a very fine example in this regard. In the past five years, the hon. the Prime Minister has spoken to more people of colour inside and outside South Africa than his predecessors have done in the past 50 years. In doing so he has set an example for us as parliamentarians and for the country. However, he was not the only one; how many times did the former Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. M. C. Botha, not talk to the Black people in order to iron out problems and find joint solutions? Just after he was appointed, the present hon. Minister of Plural Relations and Development, also did his duty in meeting elected Black leaders nominated by their own people, in order to speak to them. The same holds good for the hon. the Deputy Ministers, who regularly and often speak to Black leaders.

The process of political dialogue between Black and White is an evolutionary, developing process. Black leaders in Africa and South Africa are gaining in stature. In 1974 the hon. the Prime Minister had an historic first meeting with Black leaders in Pretoria. This meeting was followed up a few months later by a similar meeting in Cape Town on 24 January 1975. What was discussed during this meeting? It concerned the situation, future and position of the Blacks in White areas as regards home ownership, trading rights, educational affairs, influx control, professional people, ethnic grouping and transport problems. These discussions resulted in a committee of three Black homeland leaders being appointed to discuss this question of the so-called pass laws and influx control and to make a recommendation in this regard. We expect an announcement to be made in this regard in a short while. Influx control is applied to protect the Blacks in White areas from the evils of an ingress of Blacks. Influx control is vital in our country. Influx to the cities is an evil which occurs throughout the world, especially in Africa. There is an uncontrolled flow of people to the cities, and major problems arises in connection with the provision of employment, housing, education and social and sports facilities. That is why it is important that the problem of influx control and concomitant matters be discussed.

The issue here is not only the protection of the Whites, but also, and in particular, the Blacks in the White areas. We must conduct dialogue because we want to identify the problems. Black and White must consider jointly the problem which exists.

Positive things resulted shortly after the discussions. I am referring to the announcement made by the former Minister in connection with home ownership for Blacks in White areas. Last year we passed the Community Councils Act here. All these are matters which emanated from the discussions between Black and White. The establishment of community councils became a reality. We want to give the Blacks more responsibility and that is why the community councils will supervise the renting of houses, granting of church premises and trading licences; they will look after social services and the beautification of Black residential areas and will see to the development and provision of sporting and recreational facilities. They will also handle the appointment of staff to the community councils. Another matter which arose out of from this, concerns the privileges of Black businessmen in White areas. It has become policy for some of our Ministers who are not attached to the department, to be invited to open the legislative assemblies of the Black states. In this way these Ministers also have the opportunity to come into close contact with the Black Governments and their leaders, and to gain first-hand knowledge of the problems they experience. I am also referring to the appointment of the Commissioner General who lives there permanently and is in contact with the Black states on behalf of us Whites. They will be able to put our case there and refer the problems which they experience back to our White Government.

It is true that our hon. Ministers and Deputy Ministers cannot meet the Black leaders so regularly. However, contact is also taking place in other spheres practically every day, for instance in the sphere of education, community councils and other spheres. A great deal is being done between White and Black counterparts in the academic, intellectual and scientific spheres. Here I am referring to the institutions and associations which provide for dialogue as a result of their multiracial composition. I shall refer to three only, viz. the S.A. Foundation, the Institute for International Affairs and the Africa Institute. In 1975 a conference of Black and White politicians, as well as political commentators, took place at the University of the North in Pietersburg, where they discussed inter alia, the role of South Africa in Africa. Black and White discussed this problem together. I also refer to the hon. the Minister of Labour who appointed a Black representative to the Central Bantu Labour Board last year. The Black worker, too, is represented on that board to discuss labour differences which may arise. The leaders of the Black States are elected in a democratic way. There are Black professors, Black bankers, Black businessmen, but the most important of all these remains the elected Black leaders. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Alberton will excuse me if I do not react to what he said. My time is very limited. The hon. the Minister has been in politics for a long time, but he is now facing very major challenges. These challenges, however, are not the sole responsibility of the hon. the Minister, but actually the responsibility of each one of us, and also the responsibility of every Black leader in South Africa. We wish the hon. the Minister and the Black leaders well and hope that they will reach accord in this immense effort. The Opposition and the leaders of the other races can help in this effort by being more constructive.

†Mr. Chairman, I believe that priority No. 1 should be to house all South Africans in homes of their own, homes which they can own. Even if it means granting 100% bonds, the Government should sell all homes presently owned by the State to the tenants and give them permanency. Overnight, one will have created a man with a stake and with a welfare. The well-being of his family and of his country will be priority No. 1 with him. The stability given by home ownership will ensure that the owner will improve the property, and as he will become a ratepayer in the town or city in which he lives, he will make a contribution to that community.

In time of external or internal problems home owners will stand shoulder to shoulder with each other because they have a stake. That means they have something to lose if things do not go the right way. I know that the Government has allocated additional funds for housing, but the funds, whilst most welcome, must be supplemented by other funds because they are obviously not sufficient. There are private organizations and employers who are also making substantial contributions. However, is this not the time for the Government to float a massive loan, specifically to eliminate the backlog in housing and amenities in, more particularly, the Black townships? Naturally, the other race groups must also be assisted, but the department of this hon. Minister is specifically concerned with Black housing and with increasing the Black housing. That is why I feel that if they were to float a massive loan, for housing in particular, they would be successful in the present climate.

Private enterprise must also play a greater part. In the department’s report dated 31 March 1977, we saw that private enterprise contributed something like R8 million towards housing while the building societies contributed something like R4 million towards housing. I believe that large construction companies should be encouraged to borrow money locally and abroad. If money is borrowed abroad the foreign exchange losses must be covered and be guaranteed by the Government. If sufficient money can be generated for more mass housing schemes it will provide employment for the unemployed while, simultaneously, stimulating the economy. The Government can release hundreds of millions of rand for re-use if they come to terms with the building societies. The Government could then sell the houses to the tenants and if the building societies granted a 100% loan they would obviously require from the Government, say, 25% of the 100%. The building societies will then be in a position, on transfer of a particular property to the tenants, to pay over the money to the Government. In that way the Government will be able to obtain the re-use of all the hundreds of millions of rand that they have put into housing in South Africa.

The building societies will obviously need concessions to attract sufficient funds to do all this bonding. The tenants will have to be granted much longer periods of repayment in order to ensure that the instalments are well within their means. It is no use granting a man a bond with instalments he cannot repay. The effect is that the building societies will be paying the Government on all the houses transferred and thus make it possible to recycle the hundreds of millions of rand into new housing schemes. We must encourage the establishment of twin cities that have all the facilities that we have in our major cities in South Africa. The power of running those cities must be given to elected leaders who must accept all the responsibilities that go with their election. I would like to see urban legislative assemblies where laws can be passed on matters affecting them, whether it be at local or at central Government level. A Black police force must be trained and their training must be so intensive that they can maintain law and order in their own townships and that law and order will thereafter be maintained by Black policemen.

Unfortunately, in the light of the history of Africa, world attitudes are such that if a White policeman protects life and property in a Black township, and a Black man dies in the process, the whole world condemns us, while on the other hand, if a Black man kills another Black man in Africa, there is not a stir. This is one of the facts of life we have to face up to and with which we have to live. I would like to see a situation in South Africa in which there is tranquility and peace in all the areas in South Africa, since nobody wants death, violence or destruction. However, if there ever is violence in a Black township I would like to see the situation contained by Black policemen. Only if they are unable to contain the situation should they be allowed to call upon White policemen to assist them. However, initially every effort must be made by Black policemen to contain the situation in Black townships. The Black leaders who administer their townships should have the opportunity of fulfilling their qualities of leadership. Black leaders should be encouraged to borrow funds, both internally and externally, for approved projects which are feasible.

It stands to reason that if they are going to borrow funds internally or externally they will require a Government guarantee.

If they are going to require a Government guarantee, it is only correct and fair that the Government should approve of the project and that the Government should consider that the project is feasible, because they are the people who are going to have to guarantee the repayment of that money. But, Sir, I believe that the Black leaders should be encouraged to try to obtain as much finance as they can generate, both internally and externally. Schemes must be started in which community centres are situated in the townships to cater for the needs of the inhabitants. Amenities, proper planning and sports facilities are necessary to bring about responsibility and stability in these areas. Commerce and industry and the public as a whole must assist the Government wherever necessary to ensure the improvement in the quality of life of the Blacks in South Africa. Every South African has a contribution to make to the wellbeing of the country, and every South African must accept that responsibility. The hon. the Minister has a key and vital department, and he has inherited many problems, but problems are there to be solved. Judging by the remarks made by Black leaders, as reflected in the Press, the hon. the Minister has thus far acquitted himself very well. The Minister has a long way to go and we wish him well on the road he has taken because we believe he has taken the right road, especially if we take note of some of the comments which have appeared in the Press as having been made by some of the Black leaders whom he has met since he has taken over this particular portfolio.

I want to conclude by saying that the wealth of this country does not lie in our mining industry. It lies in the quality of all South Africans. The Government, together with the leaders of all races, must harness the qualities of all our people for the wellbeing of our country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer has just referred to the pressing need there is for housing for the Blacks in South Africa. Undoubtedly this is probably one of the more pressing needs. However, if we really analyse the position, there is another need which perhaps penetrates much closer to the crux of the problem with regard to the Black people in Southern Africa, and in fact the less developed people in the whole world. That need is the need for job opportunities.

I should like to take a different approach to this aspect to that adopted thus far. I know much has been done to provide job opportunities. I know that much progress has been made in respect of the increase of the national revenue of the homelands. Whereas the revenue of the homelands was R837,8 million in 1970, that revenue increased to approximately R2 500 million for the year 1975. This represents an average increase of more than 24% per annum. But, Sir, did this really solve the problem? Did this really contribute to a drop in the influx to the metropolitan areas? This increase in national revenue was, to a great extent, brought about by commuter labourers, or migrant labourers, and this is not a system we should like to see. We should much rather like to see job opportunities in the homelands. But now the question arises: How can we create the job opportunities there if there is no infrastructure and the necessary preparation has not been done? I recently read a book to which the State President also referred in his New Year’s message. This is the book by T. F. Schumacher, Small is beautiful. The subtitle of that book reads: “ A study of economics as if people mattered”. While per capita production in a modern world enjoys great priority, is this the right norm for us to use? Is it not perhaps of value that every individual who can be productive, should be afforded the opportunity to be productive? Would it not be of far greater value if every person, even though he was less productive and worked for a smaller remuneration, could at least be busy and keep his hands occupied? If this can be achieved, his time and his labour will be assessed according to its value and thus he will gradually learn, through better working methods, that he can obtain greater value for his time and his labour. My submission is that it is far more important that job opportunities be provided for everyone, and to do this, it is to my mind less satisfactory to place the emphasis on these highly intensive and very large-scale undertakings which can bring about a high production per capita.

To my mind we should not only be considering the decentralisation of labour. We should far rather have a completely new approach to the composition of job opportunities. I want to mention an example. At the moment we have the Economic Development Corporation which takes the initiative in bringing about industrial development in the homelands. Is this approach, however, completely correct? Is the Economic Development Corporation not providing job opportunities of a sophisticated nature, in fact so sophisticated that the people who are working there, do in fact produce, but are never themselves afforded the opportunity to develop managerial ability, managerial skill or administrative knowledge? Is it not far better to provide smaller-scale and less sophisticated job structures so that people are able to take control themselves? I want to mention an example. At Witsieshoek, Basutu Qwaqwa, and also at Newcastle and Matatedi, the Bantu area, the Economic Development Corporation has accepted responsibility for the establishment of bakeries. What type of bakeries were however established there? These are bakeries with highly sophisticated electrical ovens and conveyor belts transporting the loaves of bread from one place to another. Everything is done on a highly mechanised basis. It goes without saying that good bread will be produced, and the bread has to be delivered with lorries. Do the people employed there, however, have the managerial ingenuity to be able to take over such a highly sophisticated undertaking and to manage it themselves? In the whole industrial setup throughout the world, people rose step by step from the bottom to the top. They first learned to knead their bread themselves, to bake it themselves in coal ovens, and today there are still White bakers who have their bread delivered on bicycles. This provides employment to a few people, but it is work they themselves can administer. Therefore I wish to suggest that a really thorough investigation should be made into better provision of jobs on that basis. Production methods should be simple, it should be easy to master and administer these methods and it should be possible to market the product easily. The marketing and administration should all be local. Raw materials should preferably be available reasonably close by and the market should be close by. The entrepeneurial interest, the people involved, should also be found amongst those people. The entrepeneurial interest should not be somewhere high above the level of the ordinary workers, to such an extent that the ordinary workers will remain only workers. We believe in the free market system, but how can we train people in the free market system if we only employ them, without ultimately investing them with managerial ability from the lowest levels upwards? Therefore I really want to suggest that we should plan and work more in those directions.

It goes without saying that there will be an increasing migration to the cities, for as long as there is unemployment in the homelands, there will be a migration to the cities. In the cities, however, there is also no employment, but people at least have the hope that they will be able to find employment in the cities. However, as long as we do not make an attempt to provide job opportunities on a smaller scale in the homelands so that that employment can produce capital, we will never succeed in checking the influx of Black labour to the metropolitan areas. This constant influx only causes impossible problems. We cannot solve the matter by negative methods. We can clean up squatter camps, but this does not solve the problem. The problem has to be solved by providing job opportunities in an unsophisticated manner in the homelands. It can be argued that, if this method is used, the people involved are prevented from getting the best and prevented from getting sophisticated employment. These are, however, academic arguments used by people who are not themselves unemployed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to follow upon what the hon. member for Kliprivier said with regard to the creation of greater job opportunities for our Black people in our economy. When we argue about the independence of the homelands, the emphasis is placed chiefly on their political and constitutional independence. I should, however, like to talk about the economic independence of our homelands. I think economic independence goes hand in hand with political independence. I think it is a disease in most of the independent states in Africa today that they have all the political say in these councils of the world, but their economies are flabby and weak, and dependent on other greater powers beyond their borders. If South Africa wishes to make the homelands independent, she should make it part of her policy that there should also be economic independence to the extent that the economy developed in the homelands, should not be too dependent on the economy of the Republic. Our policy of border industries is perhaps an example of this. This is an example of a policy creating job opportunities for Black people from the homelands in White areas. The fact that White capital in White areas is linked with labour from the homelands, actually means that as long as the labour constantly remains dependent on capital from the White area, the homeland will indeed have its own economy but it will be an economy very much dependent on the vicissitudes of White capital. It will be dependent on the caprices of and the methods followed in the capital market which is purely in the White areas. I think that this is a good economy in the initial stage, but that one cannot regard it as a purely independent economy because it is too dependent on White capital.

A second weakness is that the movements of labour back and forth between the homelands and the White area necessarily results in people being separated, to a certain extent, from their own fatherland because they have to seek their livelihood elsewhere. The question is: How can one develop a more independent economy in the homelands or the self-governing areas—today they are all self-governing areas? The answer is that the primary sectors should be developed. Therefore, in the first instance, mining should be developed. As mining depends on the land of the area concerned, it could be a strong stimulus for an economy. In the long run, however, the minerals can become exhausted. Therefore, this is a wasting asset.

The second basic economy which can be developed in the homelands, depends on agricultural potential. Let us be honest with one another. A sound agricultural policy in our self-governing areas also means that one creates among the Black people a stronger link with their fatherland. One should ask oneself what the potential for agricultural development is in these self-governing areas. More than 20 years ago the Tomlinson Commission found that the homelands had a far greater potential, hectare for hectare, than the Republic of South Africa. Professor Tomlinson, the chairman of the commission, was one of the best known agricultural economists in South Africa. He said the homelands had 23,3% of the potential of the Republic at their disposal. When one measures this against today’s production, this means that the homelands, in today’s circumstances, have the potential for a gross revenue of more than R700 million. At the moment this production is a mere R189 million. This indicates a complete underutilization of the agricultural potential of the homelands. The reasons for this underutilization are: in the first place, the human factor, for they cannot make use of supportive agricultural methods. Through the years we have attempted to train extension officers. We have even offered degree courses in agriculture at the University of Fort Hare. Nevertheless the growth in agricultural economy in the homelands has been particularly slow. We had to deal with external factors, factors over which we had no control.

We also had to deal with another problem, i.e. the system of land ownership. The Bantu in the homelands has the right to occupy only a very limited piece of land, and in the circumstances it is not economical for him, as an individual farmer, to be able to develop it properly. Consequently the exploitation of agriculture has been at a very low level in the homelands. This was one of the problems. We are, however, glad to be able to say that a breakthrough has already been made. Through negotiations which have taken place recently with the governments of the homelands as well as with the chiefs—for they actually have the right of disposal over the land—an agreement has been reached with them and at the moment there is a movement in the direction of a corporative farming system.

The Economic Development Corporation are tackling certain projects to develop agriculture in that area in this manner, in accordance with the potential of the areas. As I have said, a tremendous breakthrough has been made in this regard. When one looks at the latest figures, one finds that project farming production has grown considerably.

Within two years the gross value which amounted to R143 000 in 1973-’74, increased to the astronomical amount of R12,5 million in 1975-’76. I think this is one of the greatest economic breakthroughs ever achieved in our homelands. As we are discussing Bantu matters and the development of our homelands in this House today, we should convey our appreciation and congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development for the wonderful work he has done in this regard. The demonstration of this type of farming has also meant that we could involve the individual farmer, slowly but surely, in this process. At the moment we are told of project systems being developed in the Western Transvaal, Bophuthatswana and in the Lebowa area with mealies and wheat, in which the individual farmer is also involved. These projects hold out the promise of great things in the future. The further implication of this is that the family system of subsistence farming is systematically disappearing and that agriculture is therefore developing into a far more intensive economic system in the homelands. When greater production volume is achieved, it leads to activities such as marketing, the processing and distribution of products and secondary industry which, in turn, has great employment potential. In this way one also creates a supply economy for agriculture by, for instance, making available seed, fertilizer, implements, workshops where the equipment can be repaired, etc. One also creates a greater demand for training because this type of agriculture becomes dynamic and one will therefore find a greater inclination amongst Black farmers to be interested in agriculture. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think most people will agree with the hon. member for Bethal that the agricultural potential of the homelands has by no means been realized at the present time. I also believe that, whether it is realized or not, that will never in itself be an answer to the viability of the homelands or their ability to contain their existing populations.

I want to deal with the homelands policy first in general terms and then I shall raise certain specific issues with the hon. the Minister. I think it is known that our attitude to the philosophy of separate development, of which the homelands policy is a cornerstone, is that we reject this concept altogether. We have always maintained that the fragmentation of South Africa into nine independent Transkei-type States can never be a solution to the race issue in South Africa and that it can never satisfy the aspirations of our Black population. We further believe that the Government which persists in its attempts to implement this policy as a solution to the race issue, is involved in the pursuance of a myth, and when the Government does that in the knowledge that it is no more than a myth, we believe that the Government is acting with a very high degree of irresponsibility and with a reckless disregard for the true interests of the country. I believe it is high time that Government members faced up to the realities of the South African situation. Homelands development per se is one thing and no one can be opposed to the maximum development of existing areas in South Africa which are regarded as undeveloped areas. If the Government wants credit for what it is doing in that regard and within that context and if it wants credit for economic improvements, for the improvement of agriculture, for the improvement of industry within the homeland areas and for any attempts it has made to develop underdeveloped areas of South Africa, then certainly we on this side of the house are prepared to give the Government credit in that sense. Equally, if in terms of the homelands policy, reasonable infrastructures can be created as the basis for local or regional administration, then that too is worthy of credit, because this forms part of the development process of parts of South Africa.

Homelands development for the purpose of creating a series of Transkei-type independent States as a solution to the race issue in South Africa, is another matter altogether and, in our view, totally inconsistent with reality. There are, however, many inconsistencies in the Government’s approach to issues in South Africa. I believe the Government is guilty of inconsistencies in many ways in regard to its entire separate development philosophy. One can also find inconsistencies with regard to the attitudes of different Ministers on the question of land apportionment in South Africa. I was interested to note the other day that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, dealing with the Walvis Bay issue, made a statement which was reported in the morning newspapers, in which he said, inter alia—

He went on to say—

That is an interesting comment to come from a member of this Government. Compare that with the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development who has said the following—

The hon. the Prime Minister has indicated— the hon. the Minister has agreed with him— that within five years in South Africa most of the homelands will have been given independence, and if that is not giving away South African land piecemeal, what is? This is, however, Government philosophy and Government policy.

Leaving aside these inconsistencies and these fallacies in that philosophy, I want to deal with three main areas of concern relating to the homelands policy at the present time. The first is the question of land allocation and consolidation. The second is the question of citizenship to which my colleague, the hon. member for Houghton, has referred earlier. The third question is: What is the Government’s policy towards homelands who do not want independence? These are at the present time the three areas of concern of people in South Africa when they look at the Government’s policy and approach to the homeland issue.

I first want to refer to the question of land allocation and the consolidation of the homelands. In previous debates, and in particular the budget debate, I raised this issue and the hon. the Minister was courteous enough to attend, but he has not yet responded to the issues which were raised. I want to raise them again. I specifically want to know what the Government is doing about consolidation. Apparently the Government is committed to the acquisition of the balance of land under the 1936 Act and is committed also to the replacement of land in terms of its consolidation proposals, namely the replacement of the Black spots and the areas which are described as badly situated Black areas. According to surveys in 1976, which I have quoted before, this means the acquisition of something like 2 million hectares of land at a cost of R417 million. This cost was estimated according to 1976 values. The whole consolidation programme will also involve the resettlement of some 175 000 families, more than 1 million people, at a cost estimated in 1976 at R380 million. My questions to the hon. the Minister are these: Firstly, is this still the Government’s intention, and if so, when does the hon. the Minister estimate this programme of consolidation will be achieved? Secondly, does the Government persist in its belief that the land allocation and consolidation involved in its homelands policy must be limited to the provisions of the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act? I think that question is very pertinent to the whole issue as to whether the aspirations and the desires of the homelands in regard to the land question can be met. Is this policy always going to be confined to the 1936 Act, or is the Government prepared to review the situation and go beyond the terms and provisions of that Act? Thirdly, I want to know whether the Government has given any thought in recent times again to allowing White-owned land to remain part of the homelands areas if the people so desire. This certainly would facilitate Government policy in many ways because it would ease the economic strain on the whole question of consolidation and the removal of people. In other words, I believe that even within the confines of existing Government policy there must be a fundamental change in Government thinking and in their approach to these issues, because without these changes we are going to be left with the laborious process of acquiring land and removing people at enormous cost, and in the end we are going to be left with the situation of ridiculously fragmented homelands.

I am thinking specifically in terms of kwaZulu, on which I should like to say a number of things to the hon. the Minister in the fairly limited time at my disposal this afternoon. At present the kwaZulu situation is that the homeland is fragmented into over 40 pieces scattered across Natal and we are told that when the Government’s programme of consolidation has been completed kwaZulu will be left with some 10 separate pieces scattered over Natal. Again I want to ask the hon. the Minister in specific terms—I have a lot of questions for the hon. the Minister this afternoon—whether the situation of a kwaZulu in 10 fragmented pieces is really the hon. the Minister’s ultimate package deal for kwaZulu and the province of Natal. Is the situation of a fragmented kwaZulu spread-eagled across the province of Natal really the ultimate ideal that the hon. the Minister sees for the future of kwaZulu? Does the hon. the Minister and his Government really believe that a situation where Natal has a 10-piece foreign State superimposed upon it, is a practical situation for the future? I ask the hon. the Minister to deal with that in specific terms when he replies to the debate.

I now want to come to the second issue. I have dealt with land allocation, and I want to refer briefly now to the question of citizenship. The hon. member for Houghton this afternoon again quoted figures in this regard. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the future is going to be when the bulk, the mass, the majority, of the people in South Africa are going to be foreign citizens living within their own countries, and the ordinary South Africans are outnumbered by foreign citizens. As demographers would have us believe, this will be the case to a far greater extent in the future. These are basic issues which are of tremendous and basic concern not only to White South Africans, but to the hundreds of thousands of Black South Africans who view the prospect of being deprived of their birthright with a good deal of alarm and despondency. It is the function of the hon. the Minister to indicate to us once again how he sees the future of South Africa with this sort of situation obtaining. How can it be possible that the mass of the population living within the area we call South Africa will in fact be foreigners while a minority of the people are citizens of the country? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member for Musgrave an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member for Bethlehem, which is my birthplace, for his courtesy in allowing me to continue my speech.

I want to deal further with the homelands policy of the Government and in particular with the kwaZulu situation, in order to test what the Government’s intentions are regarding homelands which have indicated that they do not accept the independence offered to them by the Government. As the hon. the Minister knows, I was present last week at Ulundi when the hon. the Minister opened the session of the first elected kwaZulu Legislative Assembly. I remained on to observe some of the proceedings in the following two days. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister now, as I did then, on his warmth, courtesy and generally on the style of his performance on that opening day. I was impressed and thought that he did a very good job. I think that although the substance of his speech was noteworthy more for what he did not say than what he did say, I think he made a good impression, which I know the people of kwaZulu who were present, found most refreshing. I pass on that bouquet to him as I did at Ulundi that day.

The hon. the Minister—I think it is important to record it—started off by paying tribute to the leadership of Chief Buthelezi, as the leader of the kwaZulu people, for the contribution he had made to his people. He also went on to congratulate the Inkatha movement for having achieved a splendid election victory, even by NP standards, since the NP has never achieved 100% success, so the hon. the Minister was moved to be fairly effusive in his congratulations of the Inkatha movement. I believe it is absolutely correct that he should have acted in this way and that he should have said these things. There was an equally correct response from the Chief Minister of kwaZulu, Chief Buthelezi. With the courtesy and humility which is very typical of the man and of the traditions of the Zulu people, the Chief Minister thanked our Minister for his presence and his words. He also commented favourably on what he termed as being the open approach of the hon. the Minister. There is no doubt that an open approach makes a good impression.

The Chief Minister of kwaZulu indicated that it had created an air of expectancy and new hope. This is a source of encouragement. However, again the Chief Minister of kwaZulu warned against false hopes being raised, I think with very great justification. He said he was concerned that the good sounds he had heard from the hon. the Minister would not also be matched by the performance of the hon. the Minister and his Government. He also said that he was concerned that the changes talked about would not be within what he termed status quo politics and within the framework of the apartheid policy of the Government. The hon. the Minister must respond to these things, because I think that, whatever his intentions are, it is highly dangerous if false hopes are raised amongst the largest ethnic group in South Africa, viz. the 5 million Zulu people. I think the hon. the Minister must be perfectly frank. He has talked about an open approach and he must tell them as soon as possible what sort of changes he envisages. Chief Buthelezi also referred to the hon. the Minister’s comments made after the kwaZulu people had unequivocally rejected Government policy and the concept of separate independence. The Chief Minister commented on the fact that the hon. the Minister had said that a Pretoria-type independence would never be forced upon kwaZulu and that other alternatives would have to be looked at. I hope that in view of the obvious and implacable opposition of the kwaZulu people to a Pretoria-type or Transkei-type of independence—whatever we might like to call it—this fact has got to be recognized by the Government, and I believe that if the Government is thinking of alternatives, then we are entitled to ask the Government at this stage what alternatives they are prepared to offer to homelands which do not accept independence, and in particular to kwaZulu which has indicated very forcibly and unanimously that it rejects the independence offered by the Government.

I am also concerned that the Government should be true in every sense to the spirit of the assurance that it will not force independence on kwaZulu. By that I mean I hope they will not try to use any form of duress on kwaZulu, either directly or indirectly, by applying sanctions or imposing penalties against it because of its attitude in not accepting Government independence proposals. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, too, in the spirit of his open approach image, to ensure that the relationships between other Government departments, Ministers and agencies, with kwaZulu are handled with much more sensitivity and tact than has been the case in the past. Perhaps in this regard the first person to whom the hon. the Minister should talk is himself in his capacity as Minister of Information, because he will know of that department’s use overseas, for example, of remarks by the Chief Minister of kwaZulu regarding the sanctions issue. Quotations, taken out of context in speeches where the Chief Minister had been attacking Government policy, have been used in such a way as to indicate that he was in fact in support of Government policy. The hon. the Minister will know if he has read the transcript of speeches of the kwaZulu Assembly and if he has read the Chief Minister’s reply to him in his speech, that this has caused very grave concern, disquiet and annoyance, not only with the Chief Minister himself, but also amongst the people of kwaZulu as represented in that assembly. Whatever the intentions, I believe that a far greater degree of sensitivity should be used in instances of this kind, before quotations are made use of. I believe that there should be an appreciation of the impact which that sort of action can have on the person concerned. I believe that consideration should be given to internal politics within South Africa before one simply rushes in and uses remarks of that kind for purposes of that kind. I hope it was not malicious, and I hope it was not reckless, but I certainly think that it was very insensitive for the department to have made use of those remarks. The hon. the Minister should ensure that this sort of situation does not happen again.

In the interests of an open approach, in the interests of good relations between Government agencies, this hon. Minister in particular, and the kwaZulu Government, I think that there should be no threats, direct or implied, as I have indicated, to the kwaZulu Government, because it has not accepted independence. Here again, I must refer to references by the Chief Minister in his main policy speech, the day after the assembly was opened, to words which the Chief Minister attributes to this hon. Minister’s predecessor, Minister M. C. Botha. The Chief Minister was referring to the meeting which took place, I think, in Pretoria, a meeting which was convened by the hon. the Prime Minister and was attended by Minister M. C. Botha and other officials, and homeland leaders. It was a meeting relating to the question of the phasing out—if one may use that term—of pass-laws and influx control. The meeting was attended by every homeland Minister except the Chief Minister of kwaZulu, who chose not to attend that meeting. The comments made by the Chief Minister of kwaZulu were—

Chief Buthelezi is one who makes transcripts of his speeches fairly freely available and I am sure that this speech is available to the hon. the Minister. Certainly, it is available to his Commissioner-General and other officials of his department. This was a very serious statement, if in fact it was made. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether a statement like this was made by his predecessor. If it was made by his predecessor, does it reflect the attitude of this hon. Minister to issues of that kind? On that basis one is really exercising duress, as the Chief Minister goes on to say—

In other words, it is saying to the legislature: Either you accept this, and you pass legislation, or otherwise you are going to be penalized. This is a very serious matter and I ask the hon. the Minister to refute and to repudiate it by all means. I believe it should be done very quickly because this statement had a very great impact on the people of that assembly.

Then in the interests of the hon. the Minister’s open approach, something which is very important again in relation to the homelands—particularly kwaZulu—I want to ask him to call off the hon. the Minister of Justice and his bloodhounds from interfering with kwaZulu and from interfering in the affairs of Inkatha. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave has raised quite a number of matters, some of which have already been made quite clear in the past, and recently by the hon. the Prime Minister as well. However, the hon. member has asked some more questions about them. One of the things he mentioned was that when a homeland refused independence, the Government should not apply sanctions against it and should not force it to accept independence.

The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that what South Africa can do is to bring the homelands, the self-governing territories, to the last phase of self-government and self-realization. However, the final step of accepting independence is something which the homelands have to decide about for themselves. This has often been said. For the hon. member for Musgrave now to allege that we will penalize the homelands or the self-governing territories is not correct, therefore. I believe that South Africa as an unequalled record in the world as far as the provision of development aid to self-governing territories is concerned. Therefore it was quite farfetched of the hon. member for Musgrave to suggest that we would penalize the self-governing territories if they were to refuse sovereignty.

The fact is just that if they do refuse sovereignty, they will remain self-governing territories. It is the right of every nation to decide whether it wants sovereignty or self-government. South Africa has an unequalled record as far as aid to developing territories is concerned. The Governments of the self-governing States have an unparalleled record in Africa.

It is well known that this year is the end of the fourth development period of five years for the self-governing territories. This means that a start was really made only in 1959 in developing the self-governing territories and that for this reason, we actually have a period of only 20 years behind us now. When we look at the figures, we see that the real growth in the per capita income of the self-governing Bantu territories of South Africa in the period 1960-1974 was surpassed by that of only five other African States. These five include two former self-governing territories which are now independent States, namely Transkei and Bophuthatswana. The real growth in the per capita income of the self-governing territories in South Africa during this period was approximately 5%. That of Bophuthatswana and Transkei was higher than 5%. Then there are three other African States which surpassed that growth rate. They are Libya, Djibuti and Swaziland.

In the light of the fact that this period began in 1960, and that it was only in 1959 that we began with the active development of these territories, it is only logical to expect that the growth in the self-governing territories would be faster at this stage. This is in fact the case.

I have data, not for all African countries, but for quite a number. Of the countries in respect of which the statistics for 1973 are available, the growth rate of the Black territories of South Africa is the highest of all. I should like to mention a few figures to show that the development within the Black territories is gaining momentum. Development which began in a small way has become a major enterprise. I want to mention only figures in respect of the Economic Development Corporation and its subsidiaries. In the first period of five years between 1959 and 1963, less than R1 million was spent on the economic development of the self-governing territories. In the second period of five years, R8,9 million was spent; in the third five-year period, R60 million; and in the fourth five-year period, R349 million. What is significant is that whereas the Economic Development Corporation’s budget for last year amounted to R96,9 million, this year’s budget amounts to R132 million. Of last year’s R96,9 million, R57 million came out of the Treasury, while this year, only R50 comes from that source. Therefore the budget is in fact bigger, but in spite of that, the appropriation from the South African Treasury is a little smaller. The funds generated by those territories themselves amounted to R18,8 million last year, but this year they amount to R48 million. Last year the loans amounted to R4,5 million; this year they amount to R18,8 million. The contribution of the private sector has remained more or less the same. This proves that an economic process has already begun which has gained its own momentum and is now showing positive growth. This is reflected by the fact that whereas the purchasing power of the self-governing territories was R377 million in 1970, it increased within a period of five years to R1 327 million in 1975.

Other hon. members spoke about industrial development and agricultural development. I want to thank them for their contributions. I believe that the hon. member for Musgrave will forgive me if, since I have only two turns to speak for 10 minutes at a time, I express a few thoughts about the consolidation question at a later stage—this evening or tomorrow. I should like to say something about these other things first.

The hon. member for Klip River talked about the Black entrepreneur. In the light of the development which has been brought about and the achievements there have been, we have come to the point, at the end of the 20th year, where attention is being focused on the Black entrepreneur as such, and also on another important aspect: To combat the loss and drain of purchasing power amounting to R1 327 million to the White areas which is taking place at the moment. For the foreseeable future, these are the two major objectives and the two important facets to which attention has to be given.

It is true that there are raw materials in the homelands. Capital, too, is readily available. Of all the production factors, entrepreneurship is the one which is the most limited. For the present and in the years to come, we want to concentrate on enabling the Black entrepreneur to make an active contribution.

Reference has already been made to the question of private ownership of land in the sense of its being an obstacle. That statement is correct, but nevertheless, we have achieved success in this respect as well. Hon. members will be surprised to know that in the two independent territories and in the self-governing territories, there are no fewer than 14 920 people who have freehold title to an agricultural property—not urban land—of five ha or more. It is true that some are small, but it is equally true that almost 15 000 people have freehold title to such land. In addition, there are another 9 755 people who hold long leases. Such a person does not have full ownership of land, but a long lease which he can pass on to his descendants and so on. Furthermore, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who have a right of occupation, a right they have on a permanent basis. This is not communal ownership of land, therefore, but a right of occupation which that man can utilize and even pass on to his descendants. In this respect, too, great success has been achieved. There is something else I may tell hon. members in connection with the capital drain. The tripartite companies which are allowed, and which already number 21, have made a very important contribution and will continue to make a very contribution towards combating the drain of capital from the Black areas to the White areas, for now we can utilize the entrepreneurship of the Whites and establish trade centres which can compare with the best in the world, trade centres which are well-managed, with prices which can compete with any prices in South Africa, and where the consumer public can obtain goods on a competitive basis.

Another area in which we have had tremendous success with Black entrepreneurs, I believe, is the sphere of retail trade. In 1972, 11 000 licences were granted to Black traders or entrepreneurs. This number increased to 15 600 in 1976. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself very closely with the plea by the hon. Deputy Minister for the maximum development of the homelands. With a view to this and with a view to the practical implementation of our policy of multi-national development and the orderly establishment of the various population groups, the following strategy of homeland development will, to my mind, have to be implemented over the next few years.

In the first place we shall have to accept that various Black population groups in South Africa will, to the maximum extent, have to live in their own homelands and to work there as well. That we are well on our way to achieving this ideal cannot be denied, and in the short time at my disposal I cannot advance any evidence of this at the moment. It is, however, a fact that this is a strategy which forms the basis of our whole policy.

Where it is not possible for these people to live and work in their homelands, a second alternative must be provided. Where it is in any way possible, these people should live in their homelands and work in the White areas, in other words, visit their area of employment on a commuting basis. It is a fact that this is already a definite policy in the Pretoria area where all new housing at Atteridgeville and Mamelodi has been frozen. Most of the workers in Pretoria and most new extensions are to be found in Mabopane or Ga-Rankuwa, which are within commuting distance from Pretoria so that it is possible for the people concerned to reach their places of employment on a commuting basis. This situation is also possible—in fact it also exists—in the Durban/Pinetown/Pietermaritzburg area and also in the East London/King William’s Town area as well as in the Bloemfontein area which is situated close to Thaba ’Nchu.

As a last alternative, where it is not possible to settle the labourer on a family basis in his own homeland or fatherland or where daily commuting is not possible, such labour which has been recruited in the homeland should be housed in single quarters in high-density complexes such as hostels in Black residential areas in White areas. As far as possible, they should be enabled to visit their families living in the homelands at least during weekends. This strategy does, of course, have one disadvantage. Although they are working here on a single basis and although they are living in hostels, the necessary accommodation must of course still be made available for them in Black residential areas in the White areas. In other words, there is a duplication of facilities, but because geographical factors make it impossible to transport these people on a daily commuting basis to and from their homelands, this is the third alternative which will have to be considered. It is important to remember that it should be accepted as the policy and the ideal that as far as the township establishment is concerned, according to the strategy to which I have just referred, the resettlement of the population in the homelands will have to be accompanied by employment programmes in the homelands themselves, or the township establishment will have to be planned in such a way that the town will be within commuting distance from the employment opportunities in White areas. The idea is therefore that the resettlement of the population should serve to stimulate the economic development as well as the creation of job opportunities in the particular area. To achieve this, attention will therefore have to be given to economic deconcentration. In other words, economic activities will have to be channeled and diverted to smaller White centres such as Rustenburg, Bronkhorstspruit and Middelburg, Queenstown, Fort Beaufort, Alice and other centres throughout the Republic. Industrial decentralization plays an important role here. Emphasis should therefore be placed on-the identification of economically viable growth points and growth poles. The strategy of the resettlement in the homelands of those working in White areas necessitates provision for a quick, cheap and efficient infrastructure in the form of housing, electricity, water and telecommunications. It may also prove necessary to purchase or exchange further land for particular homelands. The township establishment should take place in the homeland or, where this is not possible, the land adjoining the homeland should be purchased for such township establishment.

The total demand for housing for Blacks during the period 1975 to 2 000 will amount to an estimated 4 million, of which 39,5% will have to be provided in White areas, 24,4% in the two independent Black states and 36,1% in the homelands. This relates to the resettlement in the homelands of at least 10 000 Black families from the White areas annually. I want to ask that, in meeting this need, we should rely mainly on the supply and provision of wooden houses. The projections show that there is enough softwood in the Bantu areas to provide for all the requirements for accommodation. In Keiskammahoek, in my constituency, there is already a factory which markets a very effective and suitable prefabricated three-roomed wooden house at a cost of approximately R450. This compares very well with the average cost of a three-roomed house of bricks and cement of between R1 500 and R2 000. I believe that with the utilization of wooden houses we shall to a great extent be able to meet the shortage and also the future demand for accommodation for our Black people.

Mr. Chairman, in the few remaining minutes before business is interrupted for the supper break, I just want to express a few thoughts on my predecessor who occupied this post for many years. This year is the first occasion since 1960 that the person of M. C. Botha has not played a prominent part in the debate on this Vote. For six years he was deputy minister of the department, and for eleven years Minister. In these 17 years he laid foundations in that department on which it is possible to build. The homelands were developed from the infant stage to the wonderful economies we have in certain cases today. Agricultural and constitutional development of the homelands of which one may justifiably be proud and on which I am at present able to build to great advantage were carried out by him. He also devoted his full attention to the Blacks in the White area. I want to avail myself of this opportunity, not only to pay him the tribute which is his due, but also to tell him and his wife on behalf of this House that we wish them a peaceful period of retirement after their good work of so many years. It is a well-deserved rest, after good work had been done in the most fundamental and sensitive sphere of our national life, viz. the sphere of inter-relations among the various peoples in our country. I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone when I say that we wish him everything of the best for the future. I pay tribute to him. Mr. Chairman, the deeper I delve into this department, the more I find his clear imprint and the more I realize what a herculean task he accomplished over such a long period. I appreciate the way in which he did it. It reflects great credit upon him and upon our Party.

I want to go on to express a few thoughts in connection with the speech made by the hon. member for Musgrave and his standpoint on his visit to kwaZulu. I shall reply more fully to the entire matter at a later stage, because I do not want to interrupt the course of my speech now. I found the following interesting little report in the Daily News of 25 April—

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member thinks that we are so naïve that we interpret ordinary, decent courtesy and hospitality shown us on such an occasion to mean a sudden change in standpoint and support for our policy then he is really very naïve. Surely we know that their various standpoints are. It has been spelt out in plain language. But the fact that we differ in our standpoints does not make it impossible for us to behave towards one another with courtesy and decency.

Like your predecessor!

We can differ from one another in all charity; we can agree to differ with one another on certain matters, but in spite of that we can act courteously and in the way decent people would towards one another. I see that the hon. member is “the spokesman for homeland affairs”. So I take it that the hon. member for Houghton is probably the “spokesman for urban affairs”. Therefore there are now two shadow ministers on the one side. There are two shadow Ministers over there, but I am afraid that the one is overshadowed by the other. The shadow thrown by the skirt of the hon. member for Houghton covers the hon. member for Musgrave in all respects. He is entirely overshadowed by her. However, I want to go further with this report, and the following is very interesting—

He is going to attend the “prelude” in the Zulu Parliament, and this will be followed by the “intermezzo” and the “finale” in this Parliament, according to the newspaper report. Well, if that was his “prelude” in the Zulu Parliament I must assure him that I did not observe much of a climax in the speech which he made this evening. A most important part of the report, however, is this—

He was sent especially to convey the greetings of the Official Opposition.

What is wrong with that?

I have no objections if he goes to convey the greetings of his party. I accept that this was done at some opportunity or other and I do not begrudge him his doing this at all. But it is being emphasized here that he went to KwaZulu especially to convey the greetings of the Opposition. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point when he is going to send a person to convey the greetings of his party. And the hon. member for Simonstown? When is he going to send someone? An example is now being set to us here. Nor does this apply to kwaZulu only. There are eight different homeland governments, and in the case of each of them they will have to convey their greetings because it seems to me it is the fashion at present.

Why do you not tell the House what the Chief Minister did to him?

I am not certain what he did to the hon. member …

Would you like to tell the House?

I do not know how and when the greetings were conveyed by him.

You saw him there.

Did I see him? Yes, I saw him.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I do not know what compliment the hon. member wants me to pay the hon. member for Musgrave.

You know exactly what.

But I do know that the hon. member was not there for the opening. He came late. He then found a seat diagonally behind Chief Minister Buthelezi. I do not know whether that was the honour that was shown him. He came in by the back door after having arrived late and then went and sat behind Chief Minister Buthelezi. I do not know whether that is the problem. I know that I sat next to the Chief Minister at the dinner table, while he sat at another table. I do not know what the hon. member was trying to achieve.

With this I want to conclude by saying that it is my task—and I shall discharge it under all circumstances—to maintain contact with the Black leaders of South Africa, to maintain human contact with them on an equal basis as one adult person engaged in politics to another adult person engaged in politics.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my reply to the debate by referring, firstly, to what the hon. member for Houghton said when she introduced the debate on behalf of the Official Opposition. I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for her kind words on the efforts which I am making to establish better relations. I want to put it to her that I was requested by Mr. Thebehali, the new chairman of the community council of Soweto, to grant an interview to Dr. Motlane. I immediately agreed and the meeting is scheduled for 13 May. If I remember correctly, it is a Saturday. That is the only day I was able to set aside under the circumstances. We shall then meet and discuss the problems of the urban Black man in general. I am going into the discussion with an open mind to hear what the real problems comprise. In that way I am going to make an effort to talk to him about the matters which are of deep concern to him.

The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the beautification of the city of Soweto and the provision of amenities there. I want to state my point of departure in this connection at once and unequivocally here, i.e. that there are Black people in our White residential areas and while they are here and are going to be here, it is my ideal to make the circumstances in which they are living as pleasant and attractive as possible for them. When we establish as many amenities as possible for these people in a Black city—the hon. member for Walmer also referred to this—for example their own parks, recreational amenities, theatres, cinemas, supermarkets …

Lights?

Yes. Lights, of course, as soon as we can afford them, as soon as we can find the necessary funds to do it. To tell the truth, I am giving special attention to the provision of electric lights in the area. In this way we are creating for them a really …

They were offered to them.

Yes. It was offered to them, but at a price which the Black man could not afford at that stage. It was not possible to finance the bridging period. However, this is not a lost cause. We are making it our task to accomplish this. I have reports on the matter before me at present, and I am giving priority to them. That, then, is my point of departure. But to that I want to add that hon. members, and also our Black population will have to accept that no one can obtain facilities and amenities such as these in their residential areas without paying part of the costs themselves. This is a generally applicable rule, and therefore an appeal will be made to these people and requests will be addressed to them to help pay for these facilities. My point of departure remains that we want to make their “quality of life” as high as possible, and I am stating this without any objection from any side.

The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the Black people in the rural areas and wanted to know under whom they fell, whose responsibility they were. They fall, naturally, under the Administration Boards. Therefore the department is responsible for these people. The areas of the Administration Boards have just been enlarged and I have already announced this. The 22 Administration Boards which we have at present will be reduced to 13 which will of course—not in all cases, but in many cases—result in an enlargement of the area over which an Administration Board exercise control. Owing to the reduction of the number of Administration Boards there is of course going to be a reduction in administration costs as well. I also hope that this is going to result in greater efficiency and that, in the larger area which an Administration Board is now going to cover, there is also going to be greater mobility for the Black man, for as the hon. member herself knows he can move around freely within the area controlled by an Administration Board. Therefore the Administration Boards also control the Black people in the rural areas. They control the district labour bureaux and look after the welfare, the pensions, etc. of these people. These Black people receive their housing and other amenities on the farms …

Not all of them.

I understand that. Education is being provided by the Minister of Education and Training, in co-operation with the local inhabitants—the farmer, or whoever it may be. In general, therefore, these people are being well looked after. The hon. member for Houghton need not be concerned about them.

The hon. member also referred to the question of housing. This is of course a very important matter. I agree with the hon. member that housing should be given priority. We have established, by means of an analysis which was made, that housing is one of the most important aspects which these people feel aggrieved about. As urbanization increases, a shortage of housing and the accompanying community facilities is being experienced all over the world. It is obvious that South Africa has a backlog to make up in this respect as well. What I want to emphasize is that the solution to this problem, as far as Black housing and community facilities are concerned, cannot merely be entrusted to the authorities. The private sector, in particular the employer, has an important part to play in this respect. Consequently I have already seen sufficient evidence of the activities of organizations and of the contributions of employers who make use of the existing system in various ways to provide their Black people with accommodation. In this connection we have an organization such as the Urban Foundation—I should like to mention it here—which is encouraging the private sector to make use of the existing channels.

Therefore I believe that businessmen do have a responsibility to make a contribution to ensure that their workers live in an environment with acceptable living conditions.

†In this respect I should like to make a particular plea to multinational corporations. An investment in social progress is at least one method through which they can answer their critics abroad that they lack concern for the welfare of their employees. It is true that their primary responsibility is to ensure that working conditions across the board are acceptable, but surely their responsibilities do not cease at the factory gate. It extends also into the general living environment of their work force. Here there is ample opportunity to make a contribution in co-operation with the massive effort of the State to meet the needs of all our communities for living conditions of the requisite standard. I am confident that the responsible leaders in the business world will continue, and indeed extend, their investment in this worthwhile cause.

You must do something about the 99-year leasehold limit.

I am coming to the 99-year leasehold limit in a minute.

*The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the R50 million for housing and said that it had to make provision for education and all kinds of other facilities as well. I just want to point out to the hon. member that the R50 million is additional to the normal funds. The R50 million is not all, but is additional to the amount which we will receive from the Department of Community Development this year in the normal course of events for housing. The R50 million is an additional amount which, spread over a period of three years, will be applied for urban housing. There is also an amount of R50 million which will also be used over a period of three years for rural housing, i.e. homeland housing. The Department of Community Development continues to remain responsible, as in the past, for the financing of housing and the infrastructure. I also think that it is necessary to realize—we forget it so easily—that thousands of houses near cities in homeland areas were provided by the South African Development Trust, the old Bantu Trust. Such housing serves a dual purpose for although it is situated in the homelands, it is also conveniently close to the cities. I am thinking for example of a city such as Pretoria, with Ga-Rankuwa just round the comer, so that the people can be accommodated in the homeland but can work in the urban area of Pretoria. I am also thinking of cities and towns such as Brits, Rustenburg, Mafeking, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Richards Bay, Newcastle, East London, etc. —all White residential areas, where the homeland areas are so nearby that housing in the homelands in reality relieves the problem of Black workers employed in the White area. It relieves the pressure on the Department of Community Development, and that is why there are more funds available for housing in the other White areas. I want to furnish a few figures to illustrate this aspect. One can ask and plead for more money for housing, and can make out a strong case for it. But we must not forget what is actually being done. In the 16 year period from 1961 to 1977 a total of 206 597 houses were built in the urban areas. This is an average of 12 912 houses per annum, and therefore more than a 1 000 houses per month over a continuous period of 16 years. Is that not an achievement of which anyone may justifiably be proud, regardless of the fact that there is still a backlog? One should not dismiss the actual achievements of the department over this long period with the simple standpoint that they are not enough. I think there should be appreciation for the fact that we have built more than a 1 000 houses per month and have maintained that rate over a period of all of 16 years. I think this is something of which any country might be proud. A short while ago I entertained a few prominent guests from Indonesia in South Africa. They travelled the length and breadth of South Africa and then came to me and said that they had been through Soweto and various other places in South Africa and that nowhere in South Africa had they seen any real—what they call real—squatter conditions. From their point of view, and in comparison with the conditions in the Far East, there were to their way of thinking no such thing as squatter conditions in South Africa.

What did you say?

I told them that they could ask this hon. clergyman for his standpoint, for his standpoint is different to mine.

They should pay a visit to the Cape.

Yes. But I say that we should show an understanding for what has been achieved and at least pay these achievements the tribute which they deserve. I fully concede that we may then, having done that, make our requests.

I now want to discuss the 99-year leasehold scheme with the hon. member. What is its purpose? I hope to introduce legislation in this connection next week. We shall debate it, and I hope that the hon. member for Houghton will pledge her wholehearted support to that legislation, because it is really a step forward. I think they ought to do that.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member will of course look for a weak spot in the Bill again with which she does not agree. The entire debate will then centre around a negative aspect, and all the positive aspects will disappear. I accept that the hon. member will help me in this connection.

What do we have in mind in practice? Firstly we must give the Black man who can afford it—there are many of them who are now able to afford a better type of house—an opportunity to raise a loan in the normal way with a building society—where he is already perhaps investing his savings for thousands of them do this. With that loan he can then buy an existing house to which he can effect improvements, alterations and extensions—I saw wonderful examples of this during my visit to the Vaal Triangle some time ago—or he can obtain permission to build a house on a plot according to his own taste and according to what he can afford. That house he may then sell to another person whenever he wishes. It is his right to sell it. He may also leave the property to his children as an inheritance. When three-quarters of the amount owing on the house has been paid off, he can receive a refund from the building society on a portion of the money and apply it for whatever purpose he wishes. The 99 year leasehold system is also applicable in the business world. Therefore he can build his shop with such a bond and expand it if he wishes. In other words, this leasehold system gives him all the rights which are normally given to a person in respect of a house.

Will it apply also to the children who will become foreigners after independence?

The people who will qualify for this leasehold system are those people who qualify in terms of section 10 in regard to permanence. The hon. member knows as well as I do—I told her this in a previous debate—that we cannot perpetuate this situation for all times. Children born of a marriage contracted between people who belong to independent States lose their rights in terms of section 10, because they are members of that nation.

Even if the parents are subject to the provisions of section 10?

The parents are subject to section 10. The parents live here, but are citizens of Bophuthatswana and Transkei. That is why the rights of their children who are born here cannot be perpetuated for all time. It is impossible. That is the policy which has been laid down.

Therefore they cannot inherit?

They can inherit and sell the property and put the cash in their pocket. However, they cannot live here permanently unless they qualify in their own right to live here.

Who is going to buy the house?

Those who remain. There are many Blacks who remain. No problems will be experienced in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister what would happen to all these houses which are purchased in terms of this system after the present generation has passed away and the children are not permitted to inherit? Who will then buy those houses?

The hon. member for Durban Point is an intelligent person. He knows that at present there are two areas which are independent. There are a great number that are not yet independent.

But you say that everyone can sell their houses. To whom?

Please give me a chance. I said that the children, born after independence, of parents who are citizens of an independent homeland lose their citizenship and rights in terms of section 10. The children who are born after independence have no rights in terms of section 10. I made that clear.

In practice, therefore, the position is that there are many homelands which are not yet independent. There is no problem in that connection. Those people continue normally with their rights. Their children can eventually inherit the property and live there as long as they like, the only difference being that they cannot again be granted rights of ownership under the system. In regard to future generations … The hon. member is talking about a problem 40, 50 or 60 years hence.

But did you not say that there would be no Black South Africans …

I shall deal with the citizenship situation in a moment. Do not distract me from my theme now. The fact remains: This is our standpoint, and this is the standpoint which will be maintained. The properties may be let; in fact, anything can be done with the properties in the normal way. It is only those children who are born of marriages contracted between citizens who are not South African citizens who are affected. The hon. member should not generalize now and make out that this means all of them. That is not the case.

What about the Blacks in the Cape?

I think this is a brand new theme, and so the hon. member may as well wait until tomorrow when I shall reply to him on that. It has not yet been broached here, and consequently I am not going to react to it now. He can make a speech on the matter tomorrow, and I shall reply to him.

I shall.

I think it is necessary. Now he has a theme on which he can prepare himself this evening.

These people are therefore able to buy houses, or build houses in their own way. They can build houses which they can afford in that area set aside for them. In certain areas we shall demarcate plots which are larger than normal, so that a better type of house can be erected there by those people who can afford it. All kinds of concessions of this nature will be made in this connection. Instructions have already been issued for this to be done, so that the people can in reality have an interest in this matter and can in reality have something which they must themselves ensure is preserved and protected. I think that puts the matter as clearly as I am able to do so at present.

The hon. member for Houghton encouraged me to re-introduce the site and service scheme in view of the backlog which exists. I have no objection to that. On the contrary. The department is prepared to approve a site and service scheme upon application wherever the need for it exists.

It is very necessary.

Yes. Services will be provided, for example water and other services. Therefore we are once again prepared to introduce a site and service scheme in order to eliminate the backlog. The employers and building societies can make money available. I have no objection to that. They can acquire plots in this way, and they can erect houses in this way for their workers, who will then be given preference. In other words, the right to do so is there. I have cleared the 99-year leasehold system with the building societies and also with certain other people who were interested in it, and the Bill which is still to be introduced, meets with their approval and was drawn up in consultation with them. I consulted them on this matter, and I also negotiated with the urban Blacks and, as far as was practicable, obtained their co-operation in this regard. We proceed from the standpoint that we shall take decisions in co-operation with these people and that we shall not take decisions for them.

That is good.

That is the point of departure. Top priority will be given to the electrification of Soweto. I have already told the hon. member that this would be the case. That, more or less, replies to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Houghton.

I want to thank the hon. members who spoke on this side of the House for their contributions. The hon. member for Lydenburg exposed the political snare of the Opposition Party, and the hon. member for Port Natal stated the policy. Unfortunately 10 minutes is too short a time to deal with such a matter properly, and both hon. members were well on the way to putting paid to the Opposition when their time expired. Their contributions were two very strong and positive ones.

I want to skip the hon. member for Mooi River for the moment. I shall reply to him at the end of my speech because he made a speech on the policy of his party, and I should like to analyse it, and contrast it with the policy of my party. This is something which I welcome, because I think this debate is pre-eminently intended to contrast policy with policy. I shall wait until the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition returns tomorrow. He is not here this evening. Tomorrow, therefore, I shall contrast the policy of the PFP with our policy, and see whether we can get them to discuss their policy for a change. Up to now they have been constantly evading the issue. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is here tomorrow, I shall try to get his policy out of him.

I want to thank the hon. member for Rissik for paying tribute to my predecessor, Mr. M. C. Botha, and for a very good contribution for the remainder of his speech, a contribution which testified to a thorough study of human relations.

I have to agree 200% with the hon. member for Alberton. His understanding of liaison and dialogue is not only the answer on this level, but also on virtually all levels. Our honourable Prime Minister, since he became Prime Minister, has done more in regard to liaison and dialogue than all the previous Prime Ministers put together. That is why I want to endorse his standpoint 100% and tell him that we shall, in the interests of our cooperation and sound relations, continue with that excellent course.

The hon. member for Walmer … I shall come to politics in a moment. We can discuss politics in a moment. First, I just want to dispose of a few questions.

†There is no objection whatsoever to the sale of houses owned by Administration Boards at the moment. They can be bought immediately. They can be sold to the occupants. In fact, because they become responsible for the maintenance of the house, the instalment is less than their present monthly rent. So, if they can find the deposit, it pays them to buy houses rather than rent them much longer.

*That is the point of departure. I also made it very clear that the powers must be transferred to the local authorities. I adopted a very clear standpoint on this matter, and I shall adhere to it. My standpoint is that we shall gradually transfer the powers of local government to community councils. This is something which will take place step by step. I envisage doing this in stages. We are investigating this. My aim is to give real substance to the powers which I am transferring. This is not an attempt to bluff hon. members here. Real powers are going to be transferred to the community councils, powers which they will be able to exercise to the full. The first example of this kind is to be seen at present in the Vaal Triangle, where meaningful powers have already been transferred to the community council. They already have full control over a budget of R27 million. This is a budget which they have implemented with great success. This community council, because it was satisfied that an increase in rentals was necessary in the area, approved of this increase in rentals itself, communicated the need for this to be done to their voters themselves, and introduced it. The increase in rentals in the Vaal Triangle was introduced without any problems from the people concerned because it was their own people who applied and implemented them. We shall continue with this system, and take it further. We shall continue to adopt this procedure.

The hon. member for Klip River raised the question of what kind of industries should be established in the homelands themselves. I want to refer very quickly to this matter by saying that I agree that what ought to develop there, as far as possible, is labour-intensive industries. They ought to be industries which are able to provide the people who are already there with employment opportunities. I think it is necessary for us to investigate this matter, and I shall give my personal attention to it. One should of course be modern in one’s approach. Under the circumstances we must therefore allow preference to be given to labour-intensive industries.

The hon. member for Bethal made a very good speech on the economic independence of our homelands. His standpoint that economic independence should run parallel to political independence is in my opinion very true. In 1957 Dr. Nkrumah said: “Give me the political kingdom, and everything else will inevitably follow”. However, it does not work out in this way. Africa has proved this time and again. People receive the right to govern themselves while nothing is done about their economic development. Eventually a situation arises where a small group of rich people enrich themselves even further, while the masses retrogress because economic development is lacking. I agree 100% with the hon. member that economic development should be continued under all circumstances. I also agree with him wholeheartedly on the entire question of mining, the development of agriculture, etc. These are matters which we must deal with. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development is a person who definitely deserves the thanks of all hon. members for what has been achieved. When one travels through the homelands and observes the wonderful achievements and the economic schemes that have been initiated, particularly in the field of agriculture, one really feels grateful that so much hus been achieved in such a short space of time.

I come now to the hon. member for Musgrave, who tried to state the “homelands policy” of his party. In actual fact, all that he said was that he rejects the homeland policy completely. The hon. member denies that the homeland policy of the Government is able to fulfil the ideals of the Black people. Consequently he rejects the homeland policy entirely. Has the great truth always eluded the hon. member, viz. that every nation, regardless of who or what it is, has a distinctive national pride in its innermost being and that that national pride is realized in the soul of a nation when it achieves political control over its own affairs? Has the hon. member never experienced that concept? Is there no national pride that beats in his heart as well? Is he not also proud of being a member of his nation? Let me put the matter to him in simple terms. The closest to a policy which we have had in this respect is contained in the standpoint adopted the other day by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when the Indian Affairs Vote was being dealt with here. I obtained a copy of his Hansard (27 April) and wrote down his words carefully—

My problem with the hon. members of the Official Opposition is that they see South Africa as a multiracial, integrated unitary State. That is how they see it.

Quite right.

Federal. [Interjections.]

The hon. members could give me a chance.

Order!

My premise is this: It is a wonderful policy for a homogeneous unitary State. That is certainly the case.

No one is saying that we are homogeneous. We are multiracial.

No, but I maintain that the policy which is being advocated, i.e. of every citizen being precisely equal under all circumstances, is a wonderful example of a policy which will work perfectly in a homogeneous unitary State.

As in Switzerland?

Let me enumerate examples. Such a policy may succeed in West Germany, which is reasonably homogeneous. It may succeed in France. However, it is already giving rise to problems in countries such as Belgium, where there are language differences. It is also giving rise to problems in Canada, where there are also language differences only. The problem is giving rise to major problems in Scotland and Wales and other places where there are separationist movements, where the pluralism of a nation is being ignored as the Official Opposition does, and it is giving rise to bloodshed in a country such as Northern Ireland …

But you are confusing two matters.

I maintain that it is giving rise to bloodshed in a country such as Northern Ireland since the difference—in this case it revolves around religion—is not being fully accommodated according to certain people. For six years now it has given rise to bloodshed in Northern Ireland. It has given rise to conflict in Lebanon because it is not a homogeneous unitary State, and there are Christians and Mohammedans. It is giving rise to conflict in Cyprus, where there are two Mediterranean peoples. It is not even working in the USA, the model state of integration. Is it true in respect of the Red Indians that they are able to apply this policy precisely in respect of every Red Indian, in respect of every Mexican who finds himself in the USA or in respect of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not the policy of the Government to give Whites, Coloureds, and Indians equal rights and status without them losing their identity?

There is a special dispensation which will be piloted through Parliament to preserve for each his own national dignity, to give him a say over everything which is his own and in addition to establish bodies which will make decisions on matters of common interest. This is not the concept which the hon. member proclaims.

Of course.

They all live in the same country, do they not?

Yes, they all live in the same country, but there is a special dispensation and a special arrangement. But let me proceed. [Interjections.]

Order!

In the world history of the past few decades there have been numerous examples of conflicts which resulted from the failure to find a successful formula for sharing political power. There are numerous examples. The blood bath which led to the establishment of Bangladesh is a good example. Uganda presents us with a daily example. We see how the Asians have been exiled and how thousands of Ugandans are being wiped out. Biafra is another example, and so I can continue. At the same time we also have examples of countries where geographic separation and separation of powers have brought peace where previously there was conflict. This is in line with our policy. I take the example of India and Pakistan where for centuries wars of religion were waged …

Where does the difference between us and the Coloureds lie?

… but peace was brought about as a result of separation.

But they were at war for 10 years.

That is correct. This was followed by separation, and peace now prevails. [Interjections.] The Central African Federation …

There are examples which cut both ways.

In the Central African Federation …

[Inaudible.]

Ascend your pulpit somewhere else.

Yes, I shall. [Interjections.]

I said the Central African Federation was held up to us as the model state of co-operation in Southern Africa when the old Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Nyassaland were amalgamated into one union. For how long did it exist? The only acceptable practical solution was separation into three separate parts with separate Governments for each. That was the policy of separation, the policy of geographical areas and the separation of political powers. The unitary State did not succeed. Allow me to mention other examples. There was the separation of Malaya and Singapore and the separation of the Scandanavian countries. There was a time when two of the Scandanavian countries had the same king for 70 years.

What are you trying to prove?

What I am proving, is that political power-sharing, as those hon. members see it, does not work anywhere in the world. It simply does not work, and I am not prepared to experiment with South Africa. However, I want to proceed.

So what can we expect in South West Africa now?

I want to make this absolutely clear. In South West Africa the South West Africans have their own choice. They themselves decide their future. We do not prescribe to them. They are going to decide for themselves.

Is it going to work there? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must rise if they wish to put a question.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister then suggesting that the decision taken by the people of South West Africa is not going to work?

It is not necessary for me to give an opinion on South West Africa. Our standpoint from the very first day was that the people of South West Africa themselves would decide their future, and we shall respect their decision.

But what you are saying, in effect, is that it will not work.

That is precisely what the position is at present. They are deciding their own future themselves and we are respecting it Whether or not it is going to succeed is something the future will have to decide. [Interjections.] I have now replied to the question. Those hon. members must please keep quiet now and give me a chance to proceed.

I come now to the hon. member for Musgrave and the question of land allocation. What are we doing in connection with consolidation? I want to tell that hon. member that we shall continue with consolidation as far as is practicable. But does the hon. member understand the kind of insurmountable problems we are experiencing with consolidation? I am not referring only to the part of the Whites, but also to the part of the Blacks. I want to mention one or two examples for the hon. member’s sake.

I understand that there are problems.

No, just wait a minute. The hon. member cannot expect me theoretically to take a map, draw a line and then say that everyone should go to this or that area. We are dealing here with human beings and not with machines or stones. The situation must be handled in the correct way. What are the facts? Let us take a single example. A logical example lies to my mind in the fact that Thaba Nchu, which is part of Bophuthatswana…

A very small part.

Wait a minute. Just give me a chance, please. Thaba ’Nchu, which is part of Bophuthatswana, is situated in the Free State, entirely separated from the area where the Tswana people live. Prior to independence we asked the Prime Minister of Bophuthatswana—and on a certain occasion the other night we put it to him again— whether he was prepared to give up that territory. That area would then be owing to him, and we would use that area to bring the existing separate parts of Bophuthatswana closer together through consolidation to make it more of a unity. His reaction was that the spirits of his ancestors were buried in Thaba Nchu and that he would not be prepared to give up. Thaba ’Nchu at any price. He would not do so under any circumstances. An offer was made to unify it, but that was the premise.

But it is a very small part.

Just let me proceed. [Interjections.] It was not the White man who did not want to do it. It was the Black man himself who did not see his way clear to doing it. [Interjections.]

Order!

But I want to go further. We have a similar case in kwaZulu. In the Berg locations—I do not know what the correct term for them is—there are a number of Zulu. We have thought of the possibility of moving those Zulu away there in the direction of Ulundi in order to amalgamate those units. However, those Zulu leaders simply refused to move in that direction. They said that they would leave the area, but that they would then move southwards.

They did not want to move to that area because they said they had originally been driven from that place by the predecessors of this king. Therefore they did not want to return. This is the kind of problem which we are trying to solve, and these are the kind of reactions we are getting. Because these are the realities, one has to take the realities into account. That hon. member is a Natalian. He says he is a born Free Stater, but he is now a Natalian. Therefore he ought to know as well as I do that the official policy of the colonial British Government of Natal in colonial days was a “checker board policy”, a policy in terms of which the White and Black areas were alternately demarcated because they were afraid of the Zulu nation as a unity. He ought to know the history. In that way vested rights arose over a 100 years for White and Black on a checker board pattern. Now he wants to say that we should, all at once, to convert it into a unity without affecting people’s rights. Surely that is very difficult to do in practice. I repeat: We are doing our utmost. Let me add that in years to come another exchange of land may still occur. Even after a State has become independent, regardless of what State it is and when independence occurs, negotiations may be conducted on Government level to effect exchanges. All these things are possible if the necessary disposition and will is present. However, we can only go up to a certain point within practical limits.

The hon. member asked whether it was possible to govern a State in this way. The ideal situation is a consolidated unitary State, but ideals are not always feasible. Although kwaZulu at present consists of almost 35 to 40 pieces, it is being administered and governed by the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly.

On what scale?

The fact remains that it is being done. The hon. member should not only be negative. He should also be positive. The fact remains that at present 35 to 40 pieces are being administered in this way and if it is eventually, as we see it at present, consolidated into ten pieces, this will still be possible. Afterwards, of course, it is still possible for negotiations to take place, on whatever level that may be, with the consent of those involved on both sides.

As an independent State?

Even if it becomes independent, it will still be possible to continue with this process. Then there is another advantage attached to this, for then the negotiations take place on Government level. Then the Black Government can persuade its own Black people to move away from a certain area, and the White Government will persuade its own Whites to move in turn. Then the heated emotionalism which proves so enticing to the overseas television cameras to record how the poor Black people are being shunted around by the Whites is absent. In other words, on that basis the removal can take place more easily than at present, where it is seen as a White man who is shunting Black people around. These are the facts of the matter.

You are not serious!

The hon. member also asked me how rapidly we would carry out consolidation in accordance with our policy. It will be done as rapidly as funds allow. That is the determining factor. We shall give as much precedence to this matter as we are practically able to. If the Opposition were to help us to ensure that we have less tension and problems from time to time in South Africa so that it is not necessary to spend so much money on defence as is being done at present, we shall have more funds available to utilize for this positive purpose. At present, however, we have to give priority to defence, and no one will argue with me about that. At present it is necessary for the sake of South Africa’s survival.

Whose fault is that?

As I have said, it is a question of funds. We shall use as much as possible of the funds which we are able to obtain for that purpose to do this as rapidly as it can be done in practice.

I want to continue. The hon. member asked whether we stand by the 1936 Act. My reply to this is: Yes, we stand by it. It is the undertaking of the White man given to the Black man in South Africa. That undertaking we shall honour in the minutest detail. The word of honour of the White man has been given, and we shall keep it. We cannot go any further than that.

Let me immediately put another question to the hon. member. Suppose that we are prepared in theory to exceed the powers defined in the 1936 Act. Could he tell us where we should then draw the next line, and where we should stop? Could he tell me when the Black people, the world or the extremists would be satisfied that we have given the Black people sufficient land? Where is one again going to draw the line which will be acceptable to the Black man, the White and everyone? At present we have a line which was not laid down by this Government, but by another Government.

40 years ago!

That Government made a determination which this Government is honouring to the full and carrying out to the last detail.

For a very different purpose!

But you broke the conditions of that agreement by removing the representation.

The fact remains that we are working on that basis—we are in honour bound to do it—and on that basis we shall continue. If the hon. member is able to give us a basis according to which we can adopt a different approach, I should listen very gladly to his positive contribution. Should it be done on the basis of numbers? Is that his requirement? Should every nation receive land according to its numbers? Should one not in addition take the quality and surface area of the land into consideration? Should one not take into consideration where it is situated? Does land on the east coast of South Africa have precisely the same value as land in the semi-arid parts or in the Kalahari desert? Does it have precisely the same value? There are hundreds of arguments which can be advanced. The hon. member can attack me on this alone, but there is nothing positive which he can put in its place. He never indicates to us what he will do with it. There is another question I want to ask. There is a theory which is held by the PFP and certain other people that we can simply leave the White land in the Black areas. We simply draw the line around the perimeter and then leave those areas where they are. The White man continues to farm in that area while he is not bought out but is merely incorporated. My reply is that I am not prepared to do this. I want to state this unambiguously, and there are practical reasons for doing so. As soon as one tells the Black man that that farm is actually his area, but that the White man is going to live there for the time being, the Black man moves in there, for he claims the land for himself. There are cases at present where certain areas were set aside so that they could be purchased for incorporation into Black areas but where such areas had not yet been purchased. The Black people simply say that it is their area and lay claim to it. They are creating endless tension and problems over this matter. It cannot work in practice, and therefore I say unequivocally that the answer is “no”. I am not prepared to do it because I have to take the people into consideration.

Order! Hon. members may not converse loudly. They may make interjections, but they are not permitted by any rule of this House to obstruct the hon. member who is speaking.

I want to reply to a further question, and it deals with the question of citizenship. I have stated my standpoint on this before but I shall repeat it, because it is a fundamental standpoint. When our policy is implemented to its logical conclusion, every Black nation will receive full-fledged citizenship of its own fatherland. That nation will receive its own full-fledged citizenship and in this process it will lose its South African citizenship. That is our point of departure. I make no apology for this, because it is my standpoint. That hon. member is now juggling with figures up to the end of the century, and maintains that a time is going to arrive when there will be more foreigners in our country than South African citizens.

It is true.

Wait, just let me finish. In terms of our policy White South African citizens have the say in the Parliament in South Africa. They govern South Africa and take decisions concerning South Africa. On the other hand those people have the say in their own homelands which they govern, while they are at present working here according to circumstances. [Interjections.] Hon. member must just be fair and give me a chance. But what will the position be under the policy of that party if the figures which the hon. member quoted are correct? If his figures are correct and his policy is applied, in terms of which each citizen must have the same rights under all circumstances, surely it will mean, if there are going to be more foreigners in South Africa than citizens of the country, that there will be many more Black people or foreigners in this Parliament as well.

Not foreigners; they are part of South Africa.

That means that if this standpoint is implemented on the political level, more Black people than White people will be sitting in this Parliament and then the entire South Africa will be governed by Black people. [Interjections.] That is the argument and that is the premise. That is why I state unequivocally that we grant every Black man full-fledged citizenship of his own State according to his own traditions and according to his own origins. In the process I demand unambiguously for the White man, without apologizing to anyone in the world, his own citizenship of his fatherland as White inhabitants of Africa who have the right to be here and to remain here.

It is our common fatherland.

In other words, the basic difference between that party and my party is the following: We do not see South Africa as a multiracial, integrated unitary State; we see South Africa as a sub-continent on which the colonial powers joined a number of nations together at the end of the previous century …

You are living in a dream-world.

… where we grant each nation its own right in its own area. We believe therefore in the pluralism of our Southern African continent. Those hon. members believe in a unitary State, and for that reason we differ fundamentally from one another. The result is that we cannot find common ground.

Where is White South Africa?

As soon as all the homelands have been eliminated and excised, what remains will be the territory of the Whites. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Musgrave accorded high praise to me because I had had the correct approach at the opening of the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu. Of course I recommended the leadership of Chief Minister Buthelezi. He is a remarkable Black leader, and I want to give him every credit for it. Not only is he a chief in his own right. He is also an intelligent, erudite, developed and learned person, someone with personality, and that is why I recommended him as a leader of calibre. I mean this honestly and I am saying it here in this House, just as I said it in kwaZulu. I also recommended Inkatha and congratulated them on their election results. In practice Inkatha is the national awakening of the Zulu nation, and I am in favour of nationalism, because it is the policy and premise of my party. I am proud that the Zulus are also nationalistic. Inkatha is the demonstration of nationalism among the Zulu, the demonstration that it is proud of what is its own. We are not experiencing any problems with it, and that is why I strongly recommended Inkatha. Nationalism comprises love for what is one’s own, and just as the basis of my party is love for our own, so the fundamental background of Inkatha is a love for their own.

What about the alliance between the Coloureds and the Indians?

Whether it is Black nationalism, White nationalism, Yellow or Brown nationalism, it remains the driving force in the soul of a nation which leads it to the heights.

It can be very dangerous.

I am not experiencing any problems with it. When I do experience problems is when that nationalism begins to become imperialism and when there is encroachment on the territories of other groups. Then it is no longer nationalism, but imperialism, and whether it is White, Brown or Black imperialism, I reject it as soon as it begins to encroach on the rights of the other man. That is my premise and my standpoint, and I hope it is very clear.

What about Black consciousness?

The hon. member for Musgrave also said that I should not engender hope among the Black people which I cannot fulfil. In my very first speech in this post, here in this House, I stated my standpoint unwaveringly, and if the hon. member was here, he will remember that I said that I would implement the policy of the NP in the first place. In addition I said that I would not implement the caricature which other people made of our policy, but our policy in its full consequences as laid down by the party congresses. I shall therefore implement our full policy in all its consequences, regardless of where it may lead, and not the caricature which others make of it. Therefore I told every Black leader with whom I have deliberated to date, that I was not prepared to violate the policy of my party; I have no mandate to do that. But I am, within the policy of my party, going to lead every nation to full-fledged independence and full-fledged human dignity, because it is the policy of my party. There are ultimately no restrictions. According to the policy each individual is accorded full-fledged human dignity in his own right.

Always within the framework of the policy of your party!

Yes. Always within the framework of the policy of my party. Did the hon. member perhaps think that I had a mandate to implement the policy of his party? That hon. member tried to obtain a mandate for the policy of his party, but in the process he advanced backwards from 18 seats to 17. That is what he achieved at the last election, and now he wants me to try to sell that rotten policy which he was not able to sell to his own people to the Black people.

You must explain to kwaZulu what your policy entails.

KwaZulu knows very well what the policy is, and they have no doubt about our policy. The hon. the Prime Minister has spelt it out to them on numerous occasions. An intelligent leader such as Chief Minister Buthelezi knows precisely what the NP policy entails.

He is asking whether it is within the framework of the policy of your party.

Once again I want to make it clear that I shall, within the framework of the policy of my party, act under all circumstances towards these people with humanity and decency while according them their full standing. However, I am not prepared to violate the policy of my party.

Be a devil and go outside of your party’s policy.

The hon. member for Musgrave also wanted to know from me what we are able to offer in its place if there are territories which do not want to accept independence. In this regard I want to repeat the old, well-known standpoint: No one is forcing anyone to accept independence; our policy in this connection is crystal clear. We are passing through the process of constitutional development step by step, as happens with any normal nation in the world. When we have a self-governing territory, as is now the case, where all the Black homelands, with one exception, are self-governing, that is the last step which we can help them to take. I have already announced that I shall not proceed with the legislation on internal autonomy because I do not wish to create an additional step on the way to independence, because it is not necessary. The stage which has now been reached is, as far as I am concerned, the last stage to which we are able to lead these people. From now on it depends upon the people themselves whether they want or do not want independence. If they do not want independence, they remain in their present position and carry on in that way. If they accept independence, we shall do everything in our power to help them to full independence and afterwards continue to hold their hand if they want us to, as we are in fact doing with various homelands that have already become independent.

Like Matanzima?

That is our policy and it remains our policy. It is crystal clear.

What becomes of self-determination then?

As far as the self-determination of the Black man at present is concerned, he remains in the position which he has at present. What else can he do? Surely he decides for himself on the question of whether he wants to maintain the position and does not want the other position. Surely that is at his disposal, and not mine.

And if he decides that he wants to remain a South African?

Then he remains a South African in that capacity.

Without rights.

The hon. member told me that we should not make threats. During the supper break I quickly ascertained what the position in this connection is. As far as my information goes, no threats were made. I do not want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but that is the information I was able to obtain. All that was said was that these territories which accept this system can pilot legislation through their Parliaments to introduce new travel and identity documents. We agree that those documents could gradually replace the reference books. Each new document issued automatically replaces the reference book. But the people of those territories which do not accept the new system and therefore do not empower their Parliaments to issue travel or identity documents of their own will remain subject to the provisions of the reference book system because it is the only way in which these things can be controlled. That is all that has been said and all that was meant. In other words, those who do not accept the new system of documents, retain the reference book system, and those who accept the new system, get rid of the reference book system. That is precisely all that was said. It was not a threat, but simply a fact which was being stated. That is the position.

I come now to the hon. member for Mooi River, who once again demonstrated, with his model, the policy of his party here. I have great understanding for the hon. member for Mooi River. I regard him as a serious and honest hon. member, a person who is really trying to overcome the problems, particularly the ethnic problems of our country. [Interjections.] He does not make a joke of it, but views it in a serious light. Consequently he is trying to solve the problems in the way in which he indicated to us. He and the NRP are far more on the ball in this regard than the PFP … [Interjections.] Literally and figuratively the NRP is more on the ball than the PFP because they at least recognize one concept, viz. the multiplicity, the pluralism, of our society. That is something which the PFP does not want to recognize.

We recognize it; it is written into our principles.

The hon. member can recognize it 20 times, he can recognize it until he is blue in the face, but his political dispensation does not make provision for it. [Interjections.]

You are making a caricature of it. [Interjections.]

Order! Intervarsity is only on Saturday! [Interjections.]

I am reacting to the contribution of the hon. member for Mooi River. He said, in my opinion quite correctly, that the urban Blacks—I shall use his concept—are the key to the solution of our problems. I am in full agreement with him. From my experience and from conversations I have had with leaders in Africa and other parts of the world in which I have travelled, I arrive at the same conclusion. I want to sum up this conclusion briefly. Among the Russians, the communists and the Eastern Bloc, we can expect no salvation of any kind. These people seek our downfall and ultimate world domination. We are a stumbling-block in their way, and we can expect no salvation from them. We can forget about that. Among the leaders of the Western world it is a question of right or wrong no longer being all that important. Their standpoint is that it is very difficult for them to prefer the votes and the support of one nation at the UN and in that way lose the 43 or 45 votes of the Africa bloc, regardless of the rightness, justness or correctness of the case.

They say that they will reconsider your standpoint, but that you must first do something about Africa. In practice this is more or less what their standpoint amounts to. If one speaks to the African leaders, I think one finds three categories. One has the radical category which is already in the hands of the communists and play a part as radicals. I am referring here to Gen. Amin, the leader of Ethiopia and others. Secondly, one has the moderate African leader who is prepared to consider the matter and who is prepared to talk to you and conduct a dialogue with you. Thirdly, there is the middle bloc, the uncommitted African leaders, who tell one as clearly as can be that they would appreciate it if South Africa would adopt a domestic policy which would make it possible for them to accept it. They see in Africa that South Africa is an African State which belongs with the African States, and if they could range South Africa alongside the African States, it would strengthen them internationally, not only their bargaining power at the UN, but also their economic and military strength. Therefore, there are a number of Black States that are responsible and that say that we should first achieve an internal agreement with our Black and Brown people. In other words, I come back to the hon. member for Mooi River whose standpoint is that the key is in our own hands. If we can achieve a formula with Black and Brown leaders within South Africa in terms of which we and they can agree to coexist in this country and not deny one another an abode here, Africa and the Western World is going to reconsider our position, and we would be able to get out of the crushpen we have been placed in at present. I concede that the hon. member is 100% correct. That is my standpoint as well. I have no fault to find with that. I therefore endorse his standpoint 100%. Yet I still think a change is taking place in the world. One holds talks with leaders of other countries who visit this country. A change has set in. After the Second World War—I am trying to explain this psychologically—the Western World rebelled against any concept of superiority, because their standpoint was that the superiority concept of the German nation, the Herrenvolk concept, had plunged the world into the Second World War. It cost them a bloody war and a struggle lasting many years. They rebelled against it. When they arrived back in America after the war, they suddenly realized that the Whites still gave themselves out to be superior to the Black Americans. The colonial powers had for years considered themselves to be superior to the Blacks in their colonial territories in Africa. The West then began to develop a guilty conscience, and it began to bend over backwards to place a premium on Black colour. The Blacks were lifted out of all context to salve the guilty consciences of the Whites. That era has lasted from the end of the Second World War until now. Suddenly a premium was placed on colour and there was discrimination against Whites instead. Nothing could be done that would affect the Blacks, because the whole world was being plagued by its guilty conscience.

I get the impression that as a result of what happened in the Third World and the fact that democracy and the concepts of freedom as we know them, viz. freedom of speech, of movement, of the Press and religion simply could not exist in parts of the Third World, there is disillusionment and a new evaluation of the Third World in numerous Western countries. As a result people are beginning to see the Black man in a more realistic light then the glorified light in which they have seen them up to now. This is the era we are now entering. There are no illusions about this. This is the era which the Germans, the British, the French and the majority of the Americans are now entering. The last relic of the previous dispensation is Jimmy Carter.

Are we discussion the Foreign Affairs Vote now? [Interjections.]

No, I am now dealing with our policy. If the hon. member does not want to hear the facts, he can leave the Chamber.

What has that got to do with Soweto?

The hon. member must realize that I am not discussing Soweto now, but human relations in South Africa. If he still does not know it, he should know it now.

He is a sour old prune.

Do not insult a prune! I adopt that standpoint, and therefore it is necessary for us to consider this new dispensation. We should reconsider how the situation is put together. I want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that we should negotiate on the matter with our own Black people and Brown people. In the three months I have occupied this post, I have been pleasantly surprised by the tremendous “reservoir”—for want of a better word, I deliberately want to express it in this way—of goodwill which the Black people reveal if one makes contact with them and speaks to them. I was pleasantly surprised by this. When we converse with them in the normal way, we do not do so in an obsequious, inferior and pleading manner, nor with exaggerated familiarity either, but on the basis on which one talks as a White of full standing with a Black of full standing, for one also has interests and is also entitled to be here, just as he is. We then discuss common problems. Immediately there is mutual understanding and cooperation in all these spheres. The idea is then to work out a future together in this beautiful southernland of ours.

I differ with the hon. member in certain respects on the policy which he proclaims. As I see it, he also merges the multiplicity he proclaims. As I see it, he also merges the multiplicity into unity. We have a multiplicity of nations within the unity of South Africa, our southernland. That multiplicity and unity he wants to amalgamate with his federal and confederal concepts, as he depicted them to us. In 10, 15 or 20 years, depending on circumstances which no one can predict, there will be a number of sovereign independent States in the Southern African subcontinent, some Black and some White, each of which will be constitutionally independent in its own right. However, there will of course be co-ordination in some kind of organization or body where common interests will be discussed, where deliberation on common interests will take place and where consultation can take place on what affects all of us collectively in this subcontinent. As far as I am concerned, that body must be a body in which all the various peoples have representation, where the consultation takes place, where the joint consideration of circumstances takes place, but I am not prepared to give that body any political right to take decisions for the constituent individual members. That power I am not prepared to give it. I am prepared to have representation there together with others, and I am prepared to deliberate there on combined customs and excise duties, on the joint defence of our subcontinent, on economic interests, but politically there must be no power of any nature to decide for the individual members. That is the policy and standpoint of my party.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, if there is collective consultation and it is decided to do something, is that not then joint decision-taking?

To be politically and constitutionally correct, consultation can take place until consensus has been reached, if that is possible. Consultation can take place, but it should be left to each member to decide individually on his own sovereign right, i.e. on how he is going to apply whatever it is in his own country. I am not prepared to agree to decisions being taken which will bind individual members. That I cannot do and do now want to do. I want to help the hon. member for Durban Point. I am concerned about one aspect. If joint decision-making is allowed, how do I do it? Through a majority vote, or through consensus. If it is consensus, i.e. that everyone co-operates and everyone agrees to something, we are at the same time giving everyone a veto, and if one does not agree, he breaks the consensus. If I were to allow a majority vote, it would mean that a majority would be able to decide over a minority. Then that minority is no longer sovereign. Then their future is in the hands of a majority over which they have no control. That is why I say that I am not prepared to give that body any decision-making powers over the individual constituent members. However, I have no objection to consultative power, and I should like to implement that. Then we can see that we are dealing with a family of nations in Southern Africa, each independently sovereign with its own rights. But of their own free choice all co-operate in the economic sphere and the other various levels in the interests of our entire subcontinent. It is very clear to me that we will be able to accommodate in this day the multiplicity in the unity.

None of your members are listening to you.

They know the policy better than I do. You need not be concerned about it.

Listen to them. Do you think they are shouting for joy?

The hon. member does not have good manners. That is my problem with him.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? The hon. the Minister spoke of a number of countries, some of which are going to be Black and some of which are going to be Whites. Does he include among those countries which are going to be White, the Coloureds and the Indians as well?

The future of the Coloureds and Indians is being determined by negotiations which we are now conducting with them in terms of the new dispensation for which we received a mandate from our voters, and when the matter has been implemented and an agreement has been reached on it, they will naturally form part of White South Africa’s common affairs. The reply is therefore—this is the only problem which the hon. member for Mooi River has: I recognize the multiplicity but I am not prepared to share any political power on any level. I want to retain the sovereign political power within my own boundaries. The decision-making right over what happens to the Whites in South Africa must remain in the hands of the Whites and the decision-making right of the Zulus must remain in the hands of the Zulus; that of the Xhosa in the hands of the Xhosa, etc. In my opinion this is the highest form of national sovereignty.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister: Where there is a common geographical area, shared by Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the urban Black people, where there will be a Parliament for Whites, Coloureds and Indians and where there will be a body of some sort for the urban Black people, and powers are delegated to each of those bodies to administer certain departments, does the hon. the Minister regard that as being something that the Government cannot accept or that he in his view cannot accept?

The image which the hon. member for Mooi River is using there, is fully applicable to Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics. In terms of our policy, however, it is not applicable to the urban Blacks.

Therefore they are completely excluded?

I exclude them. They have local government authority and autonomy, but on a national political level they do not form part of the scheme. They fulfil their national aspirations in their homelands. That is our policy. That is my premise. With that I shall continue. We can discuss the matter further, and I can state the matter further at a later stage. But that is my premise. The Blacks are not on the national level with the Coloureds the Asiatics and the Whites.

What about the delegation of powers?

We give them local authority powers, but not national authority powers.

And what about the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians?

The Coloureds, the Whites and the Asiatics receive certain powers in their own areas in respect of their own affairs. The matters of common interest are dealt with by the Council of Cabinets. Surely that is the clear policy. The question, however, is where to draw the line. What matters are of a local nature and what matters are of a collective nature? I am trying to make this matter as clear as possible.

Finally, I want to say that we are prepared to give the Black man in South Africa—and now I want to express myself correctly— every right to which he is entitled and every right which a full-fledged nation demands for itself. But I am not prepared, in the process, to surrender or concede in any respect any rights belonging to the Whites. I shall give the Black man everything which is his due, but I am not going to surrender my own rights nor am I going to concede anything. That is my first premise. I have as much claim to Africa as he does. I am as much of an African as he is. The only difference is that I am a White man and he is a Black man, but we are both sons of Africa. Basically what remains for me then is the preservation of my own identity. This applies to every nation. It applies to my nation. Whatever part of identity has to be preserved will be preserved, even if it is by way of legislation. We must have no illusions about this. I believe in sovereignty. I believe that each nation should be sovereign in all respects in its own sphere. Finally, too, I believe in sound human relations. Since the Creator has established us together on this continent, it is our task to arrive at an agreement by way of negotiation and dialogue and under all circumstances to ensure sound human relationships with one another and to tolerate one another and to support one another through life as befits any decent person.

Is there no structure by means of which the whole scheme can be implemented?

The only structure which exists, is the co-ordinating body where consultation takes place, the body to which I have already referred. Surely there is nothing wrong with that.

Is it a consultative body?

It is a consultative body in which these things can be discussed.

I want to conclude by saying that in my opinion this policy is the only policy which can work in South Africa, with the population structure that it has. What are the facts? It can be said now that I am over-simplifying matters. But what are the facts? In countries in which there are separate nations present in one geographic area—whether it is a subcontinent, or whatever—and where the ratio between the two groups reveals major differences percentage-wise—for example there is America with its 90% Whites and 10% Blacks—it can be solved by means of integration. After all, the 90% will not change in essence or character by integrating the 10%. Therefore it can be done. In a case where there are 90% or 95% Blacks as against 5% Whites—as in the case of Africa—the problem can be solved either by way of integration or emigration. The latter would have been the case if the Whites had left South Africa rather than remain here, if they had found themselves another refuge. I have said that I am perhaps over-simplifying the matter. In South Africa, however, where the ratio is not so tremendously large, but is a little smaller, and where the numbers are closer together, integration is not feasible, and emigration is not feasible either. Therefore we need a unique solution, a solution such us this in which the specific circumstances of Southern Africa are being accommodated. In my opinion this is the only solution. This is the solution which we are able to implement. In this way we grant each individual a place in the sun of Southern Africa, while we, as a family of nations, are collectively best able to serve this subcontinent in Southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of his speech the hon. the Minister made a number of statements with which we in these benches can agree to a certain extent. That is especially the case with regard to some of his statements in reply to what the hon. member for Mooi River explained. It is clear to me that the hon. the Minister as well as other hon. members opposite have greater understanding for what we propose. Without in any way trying to look for trouble, I want to say that it would seem to me that although the hon. the Prime Minister totally rejected the idea of a confederation during the discussion of his Vote, such a concept is now acceptable to a certain extent, according to the argument of the hon. the Minister. The point of real disagreement is the issue of the urban Blacks. In that regard I want to point out that as soon as the hon. the Minister and the other hon. members on his side realize that in a federal system one does not count heads, but one deals with components and therefore counts elements, many of the problems the hon. the Minister sees in our plan will disappear. I am quite sure that in due course there will be greater acceptance of our proposal among the people of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister then made quite a number of statements—to tell the truth, far too many such statements—with which we cannot agree. I think hon. members will realize that it is impossible for me to react to them in the space of 10 minutes. The statement to which I should like to react immediately, however, concerns the hon. the Minister’s explanation in connection with the question of 99-year leasehold. In my opinion the hon. the Minister’s explanation of how this is to be implemented, came as a shock to many people in South Africa. What the hon. the Minister in fact told us, was that in proportion as the great ideological policy of the Government succeeds, the advantages that will become available to the Blacks of South Africa in terms of the 99-year leasehold system, will disappear. I believe this is more than just a shock; it is also very short-sighted of the hon. the Minister to envisage such a thing. The price that will have to be paid for independence according to the recipe of the Government’s policy, will be too high for the Black man to accept.

†The hon. the Minister also announced a reduction in the number of Administration Boards as a step in order to achieve streamlining. This, of course, is something which we welcome. In fact, I should like to discuss the matter of Administration Boards in relation to local authorities. I think that more streamlining than a mere reduction in the number of boards is necessary. At this stage we should have liked to see file Government working towards the total abolition of this system so that power could once again revert to the local authorities.

It is true that from an administrative point of view this system has become a tremendous bureaucratic burdle which hampers instead of facilitates matters. In fact, it is an extremely expensive experiment. One of the main reasons for the boards’ original establishment was of course greater mobility of labour. It is still our contention, however, that one can perfect the mobility of labour without having to burden the taxpayer with such a cumbersome system as the Administration Boards have proved to be. Instead of becoming a helping hand, these boards have become an unnecessary hurdle which has to be cleared by local authorities in the natural development and growth of their areas of jurisdiction. In fact, sometimes the existence of such boards has resulted in the retardation of development and growth. Basically the trouble is that the boards are so constituted that each one of them almost becomes another State department with which the local authorities must establish co-operation. They must always be in communication with these boards. Communication must be established but where this should have been a simple exercise, we find that in practice this is not the case. Boards clearly lack the necessary sense of urgency, and this in turn affects the local authorities in the execution of their duty. Sometimes local authorities must establish channels of co-operation and communication, not only with the Bantu Administration Boards but also with the Department of Plural Relations and Development. It is this lack of proper communication, however, that gives rise to concern. Recently a Natal provincial councillor, a person, let me add, with some considerable knowledge of local authority matters, criticized this lack of cooperation in no uncertain terms. Even if people do not always agree with the politics of this provincial councillor, he is still a person with a great deal of knowledge and experience of local authority matters. I am referring to the mayor of Pinetown, who is the NP provincial councillor for Pinetown. In an address to the Chamber of Commerce on 21 March this year, he said the following in regard to this particular aspect—

Here he is referring to the Department of Plural Relations and Development and the Bantu Administration Boards—

He speaks about “enormous difficulties”.

The matter he was referring to was, of course, a wish on the part of the local authority concerned that the Port Natal Bantu Administration Board and the Department of Plural Relations and Development should give the highest priority to the development of a new township called Kwa Ndebeka and another development called Kwa Ngendezi. This all has to be developed to resettle Black squatters who are at present preventing the development of other areas which are, in fact, earmarked for development within the Pinetown municipal area. I am referring, for example, to the new industrial township in the Umhlatuzana valley. The municipality is responsible for this. Here one has legitimate criticism pinpointing lack of co-operation and communication. Apart from the fact that one obviously wants to urge the hon. the Minister to accelerate the development in so far as his department is responsible for it in this particular area, I am mentioning it as an example to show how, in fact, lack of cooperation retards other normal development of a specific local authority. Obviously if the local authority concerned were to be given the necessary funds, as used to be the case before, to develop a township, for example, instead of this being given to the Bantu Administration Board or the Department of Plural Relations and Development, there would be a far greater sense of urgency.

*If one looks at this example—and I quote it as an example—it should become quite clear that to an extent these boards have become a sort of fifth wheel to the wagon with regard to development. Therefore, it is against that background that we are making a plea for it to be abolished.

However, I now want to turn to the question of the leasehold system, but there is something I should first like to say to the hon. the Minister. Sometimes the Government makes mistakes of such a magnitude that the harm done is virtually incalculable. This is often a result of the fact that the Government clings to old, obsolete ideological doctrines. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central has said that he cannot agree with many of the statements made by the hon. the Minister. Fortunately, there are thousands of people outside who fully agree with what the hon. the Minister has said tonight. I think it is a long time since we last heard such a splendid exposition of the NP’s ethnic policy in this House.

I do not want to go into the hon. member’s arguments any further, because I want to come to the political development of an embryonic Black State. I am referring to Lebowa When the Lebowan territorial authority was established in 1962, that beautiful country of 21 480 km2 and with a population of approximately 1,7 million, which represents 56% of the total number of citizens of Lebowa, gave its first hesitant steps on its road to political emancipation. This is a road of evolution which was made possible for it by the policy of the NP, a party which arose from a people that became aware of itself as a nation in difficult times, in times of war and times of oppression and humiliation; a people which claimed for itself the right to work out its own national destiny, that inalienable right of every people to exercise its own sovereign authority within its own state, a nation which governs its own people according to its own nature and ideals. In fact, history has shown us that since the Middle Ages, a multitude of states have come into being all over the world, so that no other logical alternative political arrangement is really possible today. This political arrangement and national right of self-determination have to be tied, in our case, to a territory over which u sovereign right of self-determination may be exercised.

All these things we want the North Sotho people of the Northern Transvaal to have. For this reason, more than 60% of the area of Pietersburg district forms part of the Lebowan territory. In fact, the Government is going to spend millions more in order to buy the full quota so that this self-governing Black territory may be able to develop into a full-fledged state in Africa in its own right and with its own status. However, there is one thing I want to emphasize. Any Lebowan citizen can be proud of what his country possesses, what his soil has produced in the form of agricultural products and mineral wealth. In fact, some of the richest chrome deposits in the world are found in Lebowa and they are proud of that. I attended their annual agricultural show at the end of last year and I could see that the people were proud of their cattle, the thoroughbred Peddie cattle: plump and shiny and as beautiful as one could wish. Nor could I help feeling their pride in their national flag and national anthem. It was good to see this.

Just as they are proud of these things, I am proud, as a born Northern Transvaler, of what my people have achieved in my part of the Transvaal: the capital investment of more than R200 million in the infrastructure of Pietersburg; the rich iron deposits which were recently discovered to the north of Pietersburg and which contain a magnetic ore which can be processed into 70% concentrate and contains an estimated supply of 500 million tons which is therefore extremely suitable for a steel industry; and our agricultural products. My people also have an inalienable right to these things, after all. To those people—and I include the hon. member for Musgrave—who are so eager to lay claim to our land and to what we have received as our heritage in the Northern Transvaal, I want to appeal, therefore, to stop doing so. These things and the citizenship of my country are simply not negotiable. Black leaders who produce wild claims are simply spoiling good relationships; and armchair philosophers who conveniently draw a line on a map are not serving the right cause. In this connection, I want to refer to an article which appeared in To The Point of 16 September 1977, under the heading “Phatudi presses for consolidation”. I quote—

Thereupon he was asked—

He replied—

This is exactly what the hon. member for Musgrave was asking for tonight. He has said the same before in this House, i.e. that the Whites—my people—should simply become citizens of another State. Therefore I want to tell my people in the Northern Transvaal: If that hon. Opposition comes into power, it will be prepared to barter away my land, my possessions and my citizenship for a pot of lentil soup. [Interjections.] This kind of talk is not in the interests of the Northern Transvaal nor of Lebowa itself. It inhibits the development of border industries and the decentralization of industry by creating unnecessary apprehension on the part of entrepreneurs, those people who have to create job opportunities for thousands of Lebowan workers. For this reason, I want to make an appeal tonight to the hon. the Minister and also to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is responsible for the whole programme of consolidation—I am glad that he has already made it quite clear that this Government will not be prepared to surrender those White citizens of the country—to state unambiguously in this debate, specifically in respect of the so-called White corridor of Potgietersrust and Pietersburg, that that area will remain a White area. We cannot create false expectations on the part of the citizens of Lebowa, and on the other hand we cannot allow the slightest doubt to arise in the minds of our White citizens in the future. This simply cannot happen.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the further political development of Lebowa. In 1969, the re-grouping of the territorial authority took place and executive powers were conferred upon an executive council with the creation of a Government with six departments. In 1971, Lebowa accepted a Legislative Assembly, and on 2 October 1972 it received the status of a self-governing territory within the Republic of South Africa. On 3 April 1973, the first general election took place, and the first Cabinet was constituted under the leadership of Chief M. M. Matlala. He was later succeeded by Dr. C. N. Phatudi. During that election, 190 421 votes were cast, and of these—and this is important—36 470 came from areas outside the borders of Lebowa, i.e. urban Black people in the urban area of White South Africa. The Legislative Assembly of Lebowa consists of 100 members, 59 of whom must be traditional chiefs elected by the chiefs of every constituency, and one member nominated by chief Modjadji, the “Rain Queen” of Lobedu. Another 40 members are elected by the citizens of Lebowa.

On 15 March this year—a little over a month ago—the second general election took place amid signs of great interest. I mention the great interest because 159 candidates were nominated for the 40 vacancies for elected members of the Legislative Assembly. Thirteen candidates came from the White urban areas. Of these, six were elected to the Legislative Assembly, compared with only three during the previous election. This illustrates the increasing involvement of the urban Black man in the politics of his own State. Because of the demise of two candidates, a by-election now has to be held in two districts, Sekhukhune and Mokerong, with 13 seats in respect of which no members have yet been elected. The more moderate party, the Lebowa People’s Party of Dr. Pathudi, however, has already scored a resounding victory over the more leftist party of Mr. Mothapo, which could win only one seat. Just under 30 candidates lost their deposits, which is probably an indication of the greater political skill of the governing party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg stated his case with great conviction and I apologize for not following upon his argument.

I should like to exchange some views about the establishment of community councils. It is a fact that politics is regarded more and more today as the reconciliation of conflicting interests in our plural society. Therefore the Government, through its new constitutional proposals, wants to establish institutions by means of which the conflicting interests of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians can be reconciled. Similarly, it is the earnest wish of the Government to accommodate, through the establishment of community councils, the needs and aspirations peculiar to the urbanized Black man in the Republic.

By means of the establishment of community councils the Government wants to give the urbanized Black man the opportunity for maximum self-determination as far as local community matters are concerned. By doing so it wants to eliminate discrimination among the various race groups and give the Black man access to equal economic opportunities.

Because the Government is aware of the heterogeneous composition of South Africa’s peoples—the hon. the Minister also referred to that tonight—and also understands the consequences arising from it, it is clear to the Government that the opportunities it wants to afford the Black in the urban areas cannot be given under the Westminster system of government. It is, surely, a recognized fact that one of the deficiencies of the traditional democratic models is in fact that if it is applied to a divided and heterogeneous community, a minority group can still remain in power.

Furthermore it is true that self-interest is the overriding factor in politics. The Government believes, therefore, that every group should be enabled to strive to look after its own interests through the establishment of institutions which can serve as instruments whereby to achieve the aspirations of the group.

Therefore the Government believes that it can limit the conflicting interests within the State by the establishment of community councils, something which cannot be done within the ordinary Western democratic model.

Conflicting interests will be limited because community councils will govern relatively homogeneous groups. Because members of the community councils are also members of the community, they will be the people best suited to interpret correctly the needs, desires and the aspirations of the group. Therefore, in this way the community can be regulated so that it has the greatest possible opportunity to control conflict.

Conflicting interests, however, will also be restricted further because community councils will govern over areas which are relatively small. The possibility of communication between ruler and subject will be more efficient in such a small community and thus the conflict there can be eliminated more effectively.

The establishment of community councils will also reconcile conflicting interests in the sense that the smaller communities which they govern will also have a more homogeneous culture. One cannot ignore the fact that the urban Black has been staying in the cities for two generations. His culture has already developed its own form and content, and in his own environment his culture differs from the culture of the Blacks in the homelands. While there is always a link with the homeland by which he can exercise his national politics at the highest level, he is now afforded the opportunity to give substance to his own local institutions as well to enable him to satisfy his immediate cultural demands.

In this way he will now be able to organize his own police service to act in accordance with his traditional power structure. In this way he will now be able to regulate his marriage customs in such a manner that there will be no danger of it being disparaged by other cultural groups as a result of a misconception.

The question arises: Will community councils be successful? Everyone who takes an interest in this matter, including our critics— maybe it will be a good thing if hon. members of the PFP listen to this as well— should realize that flaws may become apparent and that community councils might not always be the complete answer. We should not ignore the fact that democracy, as well as the Westminster system, rest on an acceptance of fallibility. If this presumption that a Government is fallible did not exist, there would have been no reason for a system of change of Government by elections with an Opposition as an alternative Government. Therefore community councils, too, will be fallible. The fallibility of community councils is, however, acceptable, because the alternatives come from within the community and not from without the community, as hon. members of the PFP want it. Therefore the community itself will determine the limits of its own freedom.

The most important aspect with regard to the question whether the community councils will be successful or not is the question of participants and spoilers in the Black community. The participants are those who are prepared to try to solve the existing problems. The spoilers are those who say that they stand for anti-apartheid and then isolate themselves from the problems of their people. It is they who are unwilling to work together towards a better community and instead of controlling conflict, they strive for the promotion of conflict, especially through White racism.

The success of the community councils are going to be determined by the form and content which the Blacks themselves are going to give them. The results the urban Blacks are going to achieve, will determine whether the community will want greater participation in their Government. Therefore the establishment of community councils is a great challenge to responsible and moderate Black leadership, because it can afford the Black urban communities the opportunity to develop to full political autonomy. Then, however, the Black leaders will have to use the opportunities given to them. The success of this system will be determined by the degree in which they can unite their people behind them.

Community councils, and by implication the policy of multinational development, cannot succeed without the co-operation and support of at least the majority of the urban Blacks. From our side, therefore, the Whites will have to give advice out of the depth of their experience, without prescribing to them in an uncalled for way, because control has to come from the Black people’s own institutions. The Government therefore wants to create the opportunities and the atmosphere in which the Black leaders can win the confidence of their community. The Government wants to provide real power in order that the Black leaders may be proud of the positions they occupy. The Government wants to give the participants a fair chance to expose the spoilers as powerless puppets. By establishing the community councils the Government wants to create opportunities to incorporate the best equipped leadership in the community councils. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall leave the hon. member for Geduld to the happy dreams he has been putting before us because I want to come to the reality of a situation in a particular part of the northern Witwatersrand. I first raised the question of Alexandra township in the House some two years ago. In the debate during 1976 on the Vote of the then hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, I related the history of this township. I informed hon. members about its population and about the people who stayed there, about the 50 000 people who lived in Alexandra. I told the House quite a bit about the way in which they lived, the poverty and the difficult circumstances in which they found themselves. I pointed out the overcrowded conditions which were to be found in the township, and the fact that during winter mornings when driving past Alexandra, one would within a radius of some five or ten miles, be enveloped by an enormous, overwhelming dirty smog arising from the area, which has no electrification at all. I also spoke about the health hazards which were to be found in that township.

I spoke of the sewerage system in Alexandra and the primitive state of that system so that people were forced by circumstances to have difficulty in maintaining their own hygiene. I spoke of the lack of drainage, the very bad system of refuse removal, the lack of roads, the fact that there were no pavements, the dusty roads which caused dust to envelop the town during the winter months when the wind came up, the mud which was to be found whenever it rained and of the chronic lack of amenities in the area. Above all, two years ago I mentioned to the House the spirit of the people of Alexandra. I spoke of the effect on people of a stagnant way of life. These people were uncertain about their future. They were in despair because they did not know what the future held for them. The hon. the Minister of that day stood up in this House and explained to us that he realized that Alexandra was an area in which unfortunate circumstances had arisen. He admitted that unfortunate consequences could and would arise because Alexandra, as he put it, was in a state of transition; the people of the town were in a state of being moved to family accommodation elsewhere and hostel living was to become predominant. However, he did say some things that were encouraging in 1976. He said (Hansard, 28 April 1976, col. 5637)—

He is referring to the council—

In response to my plea for an urgent clean-up in Sandton, the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 28 April 1976, col. 5638)—

That was the reasonably positive response from the hon. the Minister to a plea put at that time. It is now two years later. The hon. the Minister has gone and there is a new Deputy Minister in the department. What has happened? In the years 1976 and 1977— bearing in mind the promise of the then Minister—not a cent has been spent on electricity for the village itself, on normal repair and maintenance on schools, on road repairs, on construction, on tarring, on pavement construction, on drainage of any sort and on sewerage reticulation for the people of the village, and not of the hostel. In Alexandra there is still no communal hall, dance-hall, swimmingpool, shopping facilities or a properly developed park. Yet this year, on Wednesday, 8 February 1978, I asked the hon. the Minister the following—

1. (1) Whether the Sandton town council at any time during the past three years offered his department or the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board any assistance in connection with recreational facilities in Alexandra; if so,
   1. (a) when was the offer made; and
   2. (b) what were the terms of the offer;

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development (Dr. W. L. Vosloo) answered as follows—

1. (1) Yes. To the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board.
   1. (a) 25 October 1976.
   2. (b) The Sandton town council was prepared to—
      1. (i) render financial assistance to the board for the establishment of soccer fields, tenniscourts, basketball pitches and other amenities within Alexandra;
2. (2) The offer was noted with appreciation, but for various reasons the board could not as yet investigate the proposals in full, but will negotiate further with the town council in connection with the offer.

As of this week there has been no further contact with the Sandton town council from the Bantu Administration Board. A genuine offer by a town council to help the board in the mess it is making of Alexandra at present, has not been taken up.

The answer given is that Alexandra is in transition. That is why there are all the troubles. If Alexandra was in transition one would expect that the removals to family accommodation would be carrying on apace. But what has been happening in these two years? In 1976 one family was rehoused from Alexandra to Soweto, out of 50 000 persons. In that same year 34 other people were sent to the homelands. In 1977, seven to 15 families were rehoused in family accommodation out of Alexandra and 1 442 males were sent to the City Deep hostel. At this rate it is going to take 30 years to change the face of Alexandra. It is going to take 30 years to make the lives of the people who are living in Alexandra today at least bearable and livable. How are these single people being moved, the people whom we have read so much about in the past few months? They are being moved to the City Deep hostels. They are being moved on one month’s notice. There is no choice given to them. They are not told: “We would like to move you to new premises.” They are told that they have to get out of the house in which they are living at present, together with the people with whom they are living at the present moment, and that they have to move to the City Deep hostel. They are being sent far from where their job and work opportunities are. They are being put to daily extra expense in transport, to and from the Wynberg and Sandton areas. They are being separated from people whom they call their wives, whether or not those wives are recognized as wives and family by the department. In some cases the Bantu Administration Board has, I believe, made an offer to assist those who are married by common law. However, this has not worked on all occasions. In fact, many people have been separated from people whom they consider to be their families. No provision is being made for furniture in the new places to which they have been sent. To say the very least, the accommodation which they are being given is primitive in the extreme. Since 1976, the crime figures in Alexandra have climbed. In 1976 there were 123 murders in Alexandra. In 1977 there were 146 murders in Alexandra. There has also been an increase in robbery. In respect of all other crimes, too, one will find a statistically high rate of crime. The present policy solves little. Perpetuation of the hostel system is dehumanizing. Alexandra living remains a hell on earth for those who are stuck there.

The community council policy which has been heralded can mean little to these people. What, I ask, can be done? Firstly, recognize that this is an established community, serving a purpose, with homes for people and families near to their jobs. The industries are not going to be moved from that area. Why should we move the families? Secondly, stop the hostelization of Alexandra. The satisfied worker needs his family with him. Thirdly, reverse the decision to move the people from Alexandra and rather invest money in that township to rehabilitate those who are already there. If we cannot do that, at least provide proper housing for family units at a far advanced rate to what is being done at the present time. We must take urgent steps to uplift this community from the plight in which they find themselves. Above all, accept Sandton’s offer. It is a gratuitous offer. Approach the town council to help them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton spoke about Alexandra, which is actually their local problem of which I have little experience. I believe the hon. the Minister will reply in detail on this matter. I do not know what the problems are there, but I think the dark picture he painted can definitely not be as dark as all that. [Interjections.]

Come and see for yourself.

The hon. member for Sandton made a plea for the creation of family housing in Alexandra Township. Tonight I want to make a plea for the settling of Black people on a family basis in the homelands. However, before I come to that, I want to quote from an editorial in Die Volksblad of 27 April this year. Under the heading “Bediendes in die Agterplaas” the following is said—

Perhaps the hon. member for Sandton can listen to this.

The editorial ends as follows—

I should like to add something to this editorial, i.e. that Whites should enable their Black servants to spend weekends, but especially Sundays, at home with their families and in their own communities. Apart from all the other good things that may result from this, the White person will not have to decide whether he should organize garage services for his servants on Sunday or open the doors of his church to them. Nor will the White, after his servant has served him with coffee and breakfast, washed the dishes and cleaned the house, have to salve his conscience by taking his servant with him to church or sending him to a service in a garage.

The servant should much rather be enabled to spend Sunday with his or her family and visit his or her church in his or her own community. I associate myself with the idea expressed in this editorial, and I want to congratulate the town council of Bloemfontein on the steps it has taken.

In the same spirit I want to make a plea tonight for the settlement of Blacks within the borders of their own fatherlands. In the first place, and as a matter of the highest priority, I want to request that the development of the Black nations in their own fatherlands be planned and implemented on a much larger scale still in order to enable Blacks, according to the Babalegi pattern, to live and work within the borders of their own fatherlands as far as it is practicable. In the second place, where it is impossible to allow Blacks to live and work within the borders of their own fatherlands, more opportunities should be planned and created—according to the Rosslyn pattern—for the Black man to be able to live within his own fatherland while he sells his labour on a daily or weekly commuter basis in the White area. I know that great progress has been made with regard to commuting. The total number of commuters increased between 1970 and 1975 from 290 870 to 557 200. Furthermore, the number of commuters from KwaZulu increased from 127 00 in 1970 to 213 000 in 1975, while commuters from Bophuthatswana increased from 84 000 in 1970 to 181 000 in 1975. In addition to the fact that these commuters are able to live in their own fatherlands, in their own houses and with their own families, economically they have meant a very great deal to their fatherlands. We note that the income earned by commuters in the period 1970-’71 represented 18% of the total national gross income of the Black homelands. In the period 1973-’74 it increased to 19,9%.

Commuters earned an amount of R150,6 million for kwaZulu during 1973-’74. That is 30,7% of the national gross income for kwaZulu for the period mentioned. In the same financial year, commuters earned R98,5 million for Bophuthatswana, which is 45,9% of the country’s gross national income. Therefore commuters earn a considerable income for their fatherlands, money which comes into circulation in the fatherlands concerned and which is used for growth and development within those fatherlands. What is more important, however, is that opportunities are being created for the Tswana, the Zulu and the Xhosa and other nations to live and work in their own fatherlands. If, however, there is no work for them in their own fatherlands, they can still live there, in their own homes and with their own families, and sell their labour on a daily or weekly commuter basis in a White area. According to international standards it is accepted that a maximum travel period of 90 minutes from home to work is acceptable.

I believe that, with a fast and convenient transport system, commuters can, according to these standards, be transported with the greatest convenience up to 80 km per day from their houses to their jobs. Considering these standards, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the rapidly developing mining area of the Northern Cape, which borders on Bophuthatswana. I want to express my very sincere thanks here tonight to the Bantu Affairs Commission and Benbo, which visited the Northern Cape last year. For the first time the commission could examine a region as a whole and produce a report. I want to thank the chairman, the hon. member for Lydenburg, and his commissioners very sincerely for the fine work they did in the Northern Cape. They did good work, and I believe that many fruitful thoughts will flow from that. I also want to express my sincere thanks to the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and Development, Dr. Vosloo, for the visit he made to this area this year. The commission and the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that this area with its mineral riches is ideal for settling Tswana labourers in their own fatherland and enabling them to sell their labour on a daily or weekly commuter basis in the mining areas of the Northern Cape.

I regret to have to say that as a result of poor planning in the past, because of a lack of considered action, a situation has developed in this area which has greatly prejudiced the ideal settlement of Tswana in their fatherland. Today we find that 7 346 Blacks live and work at 13 mines in the White area, mines which are situated, on an average, 33 km from Coretsi. Coretsi is a small town in Bophuthatswana which is ideal for development as a town where the labourers of these 13 mines can be settled on a family basis and where they can sell their labour on a daily commuter basis at these mines. In the present financial year about R300 000 is allocated for creating the necessary infrastructure for this little town. However, I want to make a very urgent plea to the hon. the Minister tonight. I want to plead for more money to be made available to make it possible to develop this little town as soon as possible. I want to mention the following example. Three years ago, S.A. Manganese wanted to build 300 houses in Bophuthatswana for Black families who work there. Coretsi would have been the ideal place. They were prepared to build a workshop and a training centre there. The Government of Bophuthatswana, however, could not bring about this ideal situation. Anglo American, which is now exploiting a mine at Middelplaas, is prepared to settle its Blacks on a family basis in the homelands, and Coretsi may be the ideal place for them as well. However, the department had to give permission for their Blacks to be housed in a hostel at the mine, about 15 km from Coretsi. Therefore I request the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister to give serious consideration to making available the necessary funds this year in order to create the infrastructure at Coretsi to settle people there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman must please excuse me if I do not react to his arguments now. Ten minutes go by rather quickly. I should like to associate myself with the praise of the hon. the Minister expressed this evening by the hon. member for Pietersburg for the exceptional and major speech he made here, a speech in which he fearlessly stated the policy of the NP. I believe that the speech by the hon. the Minister will go down as one of the most important speeches he has ever made in this House. However, we are waiting in suspense for the PFP to come forward and carry out their promise. After all, a few days ago they promised that they would state their standpoint and their policy in this debate. We trust that they, too, will now do so.

While compiling my notes for this debate, what I had in mind in particular was to refer to a statement made recently to the effect that the Government is no longer in favour of further meaningful consolidation, and also to suggestions and ideas which have come to the fore in recent times to the effect that the White farmers whose land had been earmarked for incorporation in homelands would no longer be brought out, but merely included. I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister for his clear exposition in regard to these two standpoints. Nevertheless I want to come back to them. The debate on the question of consolidation is continuing. It is a debate conducted by politicians, by reform-conscious political observers, by newspapermen, by academics and, of course, particularly by the farmers directly involved in this matter.

Now, the fact is that some of the participants in the debate on consolidation are of the opinion that they must give up in the face of what they call the impassivity and almost brutal realism of the political practitioners and the so-called establishment people. The statement is also made that as far as the ideal of full consolidated and conjoint homelands is concerned, the politicians and the bureaucrats are getting cold feet. The political practitioners and the establishment people referred to are of course the hon. members of this House. These forward-looking idealists, as they like to call themselves, go still further and in this debate make the statement that now that we have apparently reached a specific point in the consolidation programme, it appears that there are political spokesmen who argue that we have gone far enough and that we must accept the map as it stands. In conjunction with what the hon. the Minister said, I want to say that that standpoint is by no means true. It is not true that the Government is not in favour of meaningful consolidation. In the past it has often been said of this side of the House that meaningful consolidation remains the target and the ideal. That, too, is why the hon. the Prime Minister recently entered the debate on consolidation. During the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, the Official Opposition again referred to the issue of the consolidation of homelands. The hon. the Prime Minister then replied—and I quote (Hansard, 12 April 1978, col. 4511)—

He also referred to the practical problems we were facing and said that consolidation had not been disposed of. He went on to say (col. 4512)—

I believe it is very important that special cognizance be taken of and attention given to these statements by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to consolidation. I can assure hon. members that reference will often be made in future to the standpoints adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister and by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development this evening.

I now come back to the matters to which I referred a moment ago, viz. the concern felt by many of our farmers whose land is going to be incorporated in the homelands. Something new has now raised its head. Earlier this session the hon. member for Constantia, when taking part in the budget debate, also referred to the consolidation of the homelands and suggested that the land of the White farmers need not be bought out but merely included in the homelands. The purchase of the land in question is of course a matter which all of us want disposed of as soon as possible, particularly hon. members in whose constituencies such land is situated. The hon. member for Aliwal also referred to this issue recently with reference to the steps taken by Chief Matanzima. I believe there is no one who is more eager to dispose of the programme of purchases as soon as possible as this very hon. Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development. All of us know that if it had not been for the difficult financial and economic conditions which not only our country, but the entire world, have experienced over the past few years, the purchases would have been disposed of a long time ago. We must show understanding for the extremely difficult task which the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development have to struggle with the limited funds available.

I want to object in the strongest terms to the point of view of the hon. member for Constantia to which I have just referred. He is not the only one who simply wants to incorporate the farmers’ lands into the homelands summarily and without payment. We also find to an increasing extent that the forward-looking idealists and reform-conscious political observers are insisting that White farmers’ land should not be bought out but simply incorporated in the homelands and that the farmers should then remain in the homelands as entrepreneurs.

As the representative of a constituency which includes a considerable area of land already set aside for incorporation in Bophuthatswana, I should like to oppose such a line of thought in the strongest possible terms and I repeat that I am most grateful that the hon. the Minister stated his standpoint so clearly and bluntly this evening and gave our people the necessary assurance. I shall take pleasure in conveying the standpoint of the hon. the Minister to the voters of my constituency, because a considerable degree of concern has prevailed among them recently in regard to this standpoint, which has also enjoyed fairly widespread coverage in the Press.

We welcome the debate on consolidation, particularly meaningful consolidation. There is no doubt that the academics, the Press and those who think ahead, can make a valuable contribution. However, we must all be realistic. One cannot simply bring about solutions to political problems with a stroke of the pen. Greater realism and responsibility concerning matters of this nature must be displayed.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member for Marico to forgive me if I do not follow him, but there are just one or two comments I would like to make. When he started off I was very hopeful that we were not going to have another read speech in this House. Unfortunately my hope did not last for very long because as soon as he got on to his prepared speech we once again had a case of a speech being read in this House. I want to make a plea to hon. members on the other side not to do so, because it makes it an awful lot easier for us to listen if they would only deliver their speeches without reading. [Interjections.] It has become very apparent in this debate that the real debate within this Vote has been with the NRP. [Interjections.] There is no doubt that the so-called Official Opposition has in fact done nothing but what they usually do, i.e. taking a straight confrontation line. They do not offer any real alternatives or any acceptable alternatives which the voting public of South Africa can give serious consideration to.

The last time I rose to speak in a debate in which the hon. the Minister who is now involved, was then involved, I in fact called for a vote of censure against the hon. the Minister and I hope he will not hold that against me in this debate.

Why did you not raise the matter in the Select Committee? [Interjections.]

I would like to tell that hon. member that in the Select Committee it was not our job to call for the head of the hon. the Minister on a platter. We were there to listen to evidence and to make up our minds. [Interjections.] I do not want to be diverted into the Department of Information. As I have said, we called for the hon. the Minister’s head and I would like to thank hon. members of the Official Opposition for actually following on afterwards and supporting our call later in the Press. It was nice to see that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Sea Point had come around to our point of view.

I think you are out of your mind! [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has in fact referred this evening in the debate to pluralism …

What are you reading?

I am not reading anything. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister referred to pluralism and I was checking up that he had mentioned Canada, Ireland and all sorts of countries where pluralism, in unity States which did not recognize that pluralism, had caused disaster within a Westminster type system, the sort of system which the hon. members to my right here seek to impose on this country. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister is not prepared to go far enough in so far as pluralism is concerned, because he fails to recognized that there are Black South Africans as well as White South Africans. We as Whites are proud to be South Africans, we wish to retain our South African citizenship and we wish to live in this common area, but we must not forget that there are many Black people who share these same aspirations with us. There are many Black people who are proud to be South Africans and they also will live in the area which will continue to be White South Africa as the hon. the Minister sees it. They will continue in perpetuity to live there and so will their children and their children’s children. I do not think the hon. the Minister can deny that this will be the case. These people will have to do this without becoming South African citizens and, in fact, will have their South African citizenship taken away from them. This is where the policy of the hon. the Minister and the Government is going to collapse in ruins. We have already seen what has happened in the Transkei, this wonderful new development of the NP policy of separate development. Here was their first new and wonderful independent State. What are the people who are bordering onto that State saying to themselves at night and during the day? Next to them they have an independent State which has severed its diplomatic ties with South Africa Can they help but wonder what is going to happen to them? Are they going to have another Mozambique on their borders? Are they going to have another Botswana on their borders? [Interjections.]

I think that is very irresponsible talk.

I want to appeal to that hon. Minister to make every effort to talk to the Transkei and to get the diplomatic standing between that country and our country back on an even keel, because I believe it is in the best interests of South Africa that this should happen. I believe it is in the best interests of South Africa that the Transkei and our country should have benevolent and decent relations, one with the other. [Interjections.]

The next point I want to touch on is the question of the development of the homelands economically. I realize that predominantly this becomes the job of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, but I believe the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development should take a great interest in this because he is the Minister who is uprooting people from the places where they live and is transporting them to the homelands. He said earlier in the debate that he wants to provide—he wants to provide this in Soweto too—wonderful living conditions for them. I approve of this idea and I am thankful to the hon. the Minister that he wishes to do this. He wants them to have their facilities, their cinemas, their sports fields, their stadiums, etc., but there is one thing that the hon. the Minister has to remember and that is that when a person, whoever he might be, has these facilities, he wants to hang on to them, and the only way he can hang on to them is by having a job of work to do. When these people are moved out from the Western Cape, or wherever they might be, into an area such as Mdantsane—I am using my own area as an example—I believe it is that hon. Minister’s job to ensure that these people have a job of work to do. Unfortunately, at the moment this is not the case and I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to appeal to the appeal to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to see what can be done in this regard. I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has, in fact, called for an investigation to be done by the University of Port Elizabeth, who will investigate unemployment in the East London area, an area which includes Mdantsane. However, this must be done as a matter of urgency because of the tremendous number of unemployed who are already in Mdantsane. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister’s department wants to develop a new Mdantsane at Potsdam where there are going to be, I understand, 30 000 houses for Blacks. This is probably going to give us an additional Black population of 200 000 to 300 000 people, and when those people are all there and have their homes, they are also going to need jobs.

It is going to be absolutely essential that the relevant economic development should take place in that area, and if there are not sufficient incentives at the moment to bring industries there, that hon. Minister, who shares the responsibility for uprooting people where they have a life and a job, must also take responsibility for seeing that they will have a job in their new environment.

Order! I accept that the hon. member for East London North was not, with his comment on the reading of speeches, casting a reflection on the Chair. The Chair has already, on more than one occasion, drawn the attention of the hon. members of all the parties to Standing Order No. 123. I just wish to emphasize this Standing Order once again.

Mr. Chairman, the speech of the hon. member for East London North was remarkable solely for its lack of originality. With the exception of one point which the hon. member made towards the end, with which I am sure the hon. the Minister will deal very ably, we had the old arguments trotted out again with a little additional sniping at the Official Opposition to his right. He referred, for example, to the Transkei situation and the decision of the Transkei to sever its diplomatic relations with South Africa. This has been answered by this side of the House very clearly. The fact is that after a grant of independence to a State it is the inherent right of that State to sever its diplomatic relations. It is inherent in the grant of independence to a State to choose whatever foreign policy it wishes to adopt, and the fact that Transkei did that is no comment whatsoever on the wisdom of applying a policy of political decentralization on a homeland basis. It does not touch the substance of that policy in any way. As a matter of fact, that whole line of criticism of the homeland policy falls down completely the minute one starts to look at the alternatives to the homeland policy which the Opposition parties propose.

The hon. member for East London North also spoke about the economic development of the homeland areas. This is a curious argument coming from any Opposition speaker, because as long as I have been interested in politics, I can recall Government spokesmen and supporters of standing urging businessmen and people who could be influenced by those Opposition parties, to think in terms of helping with the economic development of the homeland areas. And those Opposition politicians, and the generation of Opposition politicians who sat on those benches before them, did absolutely nothing to help in that particular process. If the hon. member expresses some concern and interest and if he will use his powers of persuasion in the business circles in which he is influential, we on this side of the House will welcome his efforts. However, he must not criticize the Government for the failings … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, my time is limited. So much then for the hon. member for East London North.

I believe we owe the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development something of a tribute for his answer to the debate earlier this evening, when he spelled out Government policy in great detail. The hon. member for Rissik paid tribute to the previous Minister, and that is as it should be. But the fact is that we live in changing situations and in different times. The hon. the Minister has brought a new style to his portfolio. He is a man who knows where he wants to go and who has a very clear vision of the kind of South Africa he wishes to bring about. However, he is also a politician who is a reconciliationist. He is obviously a man who tries to meet the other man’s point of view. This is important in the kind of situation in which we in South Africa find ourselves, given our race relations, the international positions, and the challenges which face us. The hon. the Minister summed up the policy at the end of his speech by saying that, as far as he was concerned, the main points were group self-determination, group sovereignty and sound race relations. That seems to me to be something which all responsible politicians can support. At the heart of Government policy—this point was made very emphatically by the hon. the Minister—is the concept of a geopolitical transfer of political power.

And no Black South Africans?

I want to give hon. members on that side of the House a short lesson in the time I have left. There may be people on that side of the House—particularly the hon. member for Pinelands, who is sometimes an open-minded man and who should perhaps listen to what I have to say— who say that this is a new policy. This was a policy which was supported from within the English-speaking intelligentsia, and solidly supported as early as the ’thirties and the ’forties. In fact, Prof. Alfred Hoernlé, who was regarded as one of the most influential academics within English-speaking South Africa in the ’thirties and early ’forties, and who profoundly influenced thought within the English-speaking universities in the ’fifties, was a man who supported the concept of territorial separation.

He changed his mind.

The hon. member for Houghton is suddenly very concerned, but the fact is that Alfred Hoernlé, speaking on this whole question, described a liberal as simply being “a person who loves liberty” and a person who is “open-minded”. Liberalism in his time referred to the original concept of liberalism and of a liberal. In this respect he said that liberals could support partition or political separation. In fact, he dealt with the question of long-term goals. I quote this for the hon. member for Durban Point, because it may be more useful to him than all the books he reads on pluralism. I want the Opposition to listen to this, because it is relevant to this day. He said—

And as a matter of fact, in 1945—I want to stress this for the benefit of the hon. member for Houghton—Hoernlé wrote—

He was referring to the homeland areas, which were simply described as the Native Reserves—

Here one has a leading figure, in fact a dominant figure within the English-speaking intelligentsia of the ’thirties, ’forties and deep into the ’fifties, in effect saying that the answer to this particular part of South Africa’s problem is the transfer of political power on territorial lines.

Did he not change his mind?

The hon. member must produce the evidence of that. The hon. member must produce the evidence that this was not relevant at that particular time. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

The House adjourned at 22h30.