Mr. Chairman, I think it is very clear from the discussion we have had up to now that there are several aspects on which members of both sides of the House agree regarding our ethnic policy in South Africa. I think that one of the aspects on which we are agreed—in fact, it is so well known one hardly need argue the matter—is the diversity of nations and the multiplicity of nations in South Africa. We simply have to accept that there is a White community, a Coloured community and an Indian community which identify themselves as such. There are also various Black communities, national groups, inter alia, the Tswana-Sotho group, consisting of the Tswana nation; the South Sotho and the North Sotho. Then, too, there is the Venda nation, a nation whose customs and traditions distinguish it from all other Black nations in South Africa. We also have the Tsonga-Shangaan nation of Gazankulu. In addition one could also refer to the Nguni group, consisting of the Zulu nation, the Xhosa-speaking people of Transkei and the Ciskei, as well as the Swazis and the Ndebele. On every level we are faced with diversity. The diversity is such that even in Soweto we are reminded by responsible leaders: “Please remember there are eight or nine racial groups in Soweto.” It is with those groups, that multiplicity, that we have to deal and have to take account of.

The second important fact on which, I believe, we are all in agreement is that a system of domination of one group by another is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable in the rest of the world, and it is also unacceptable in South Africa. It is unacceptable for the Whites, it is unacceptable for the Coloureds, as well as for every Black nation in South Africa, to be dominated by any other nation. Should it be necessary to find confirmation for this, I can refer by way of repetition to what the Prime Minister of Transkei said two years ago. Bound up with this diversity and the unwillingness to be dominated by another nation, is the important issue which everybody subscribes to, namely the right of self-determination. The Chief Minister of Transkei expressed it as follows—

This is an example of what is being put to us, and we shall have to take a look at it. Here we have people who asked for independence and who say that it is simply intolerable that one nation should govern another. Then the Chief Minister of Transkei added the following striking words—

It is true that he speaks here of a system of oppression in South Africa, but the fact of the matter is that he refused to allow his nation to continue in such a system. So he asked for independence. That is the third important fact on which we are all agreed.

The fourth point on which we are all agreed is that decentralization and transfer of power must be obtained. I do not think anybody who subscribes to the principle of the right of self-determination of nations will find fault with this principle, viz. the principle that power should be transferred to the various nations. Nor is that all: Not only must it be transferred, but power structures within those separate national communities must also be established. That is a very important facet of our policy.

When they endorse these four basic points of departure hon. members opposite cannot deny that it is essential that the separate components of the population of South Africa not only claim self-determination, but that they should also wish to structure that self-determination within their own power structures, within their own highest political power structures, as well as within their own social structure.

This is perhaps where the paths diverge. Hon. members opposite, inter alia, the hon. member for Mooi River, pleaded again yesterday for White leadership. We need not relinquish White leadership in the sense of primus inter pares, because it is not leadership in the spirit of domination of one by another, or in the sense that one is the leader of subordinates. It amounts to leadership amongst equals. It is leadership of the Republic of South Africa amongst other independent States who look to the aid, the expertise, the “know-how” of the people in the Republic of South Africa without this leadership signifying domination of those nations. I know we are playing with the concept of “pluralism”. Everybody talks of pluralism. I have referred to this before. But, Sir, may I point out to hon. members that it is not such a simple concept, a magic wand whereby political relations in South Africa can be solved. The fact of the matter is that there are different patterns of pluralism in the world. There is one in America and this differs from that of Switzerland. There is a plural system in South Africa which in turn differs from that of Switzerland. In addition, in South Africa there are factors of race, colour, national aims, culture and religion which, when they are all present within the same system, create a cumulative conflict among the different components when they are forced into the same social and political set-up. It is for that reason that the NP propagates a policy of separate freedoms. In terms of this the way can be cleared to achieve the greatest possible self-determination and political self-determination in South Africa for the various ethnic components of the population.

Against this background I want to say a few words in support of social research in South Africa in the few minutes at my disposal. If the position is that we do have a diversity of nations, we accept at the same time that each of those various nations, each with its own political future and political claims, will also claim that attention should be given to its land structures, its social structures, its economic structures, its industrial structures, etc. One need not be obsessed by the idea of apartheid or homeland development to advocate this. One need only look at the trend in other countries, e.g. European countries, where they are virtually forced to decentralize in order to have industries established at different places away from the metropolitan areas. They are simply forced to do this. In South Africa we now have an additional factor, namely that of nations thriving for self-determination, and not only political self-determination, but self-determination lower down as well in the social structures and in economic life. In view of this, it is essential that we should have development research to help these different nations. In this connection I want to put four questions. Perhaps these are requests to which the hon. the Minister can reply.

The first is that we should try to bring about a greater co-ordination of the research being done at different levels. The Committee for Development Research is at present engaged in 150 research projects. This is a tremendously comprehensive task. I think therefore that it is essential that we should have greater co-ordination among the various State departments so that research may be directed at the welfare of the White nation as well as the various Black nations. The first request I make, therefore, is that these matters should be co-ordinated.

The second request is that we should concentrate on practical needs. We do have scientific, academic research which is not always orientated towards practical needs. But we are asking here, in the interests of the development of the different communities, that development investigation and research be concentrated on the practical problems with which these nations have to contend.

This does not only apply to the biological sciences. It applies to sociology, ethnology, development administration, development financing, communication skills, and so on.

The third request I want to make is that we should allocate research projects to Black researchers. In the first place they could be allocated to the different universities, such as the universities at Turfloop, Fort Hare and Zululand. It could also be allocated to a university such as the University of the Western Cape, but I am not referring to them at this stage. The researchers at these institutions, who are competent must be identified and could then receive instructions in the interests of the communities of which they form part.

Order! I regret that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

I just wanted to add, Sir, that I hoped they would receive the funds for this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, no doubt the House will be very interested in hearing the questions put by the hon. the Deputy Minister replied to by the hon. the Minister. This has been a somewhat unusual procedure, and I think it will be most interesting to hear the replies given. The hon. the Deputy Minister will forgive me if I do not enter into a discussion with him, suffice to say that he has in fact emphasized the basic philosophical difference in thinking between that side of the House and this side. He sees the position as being that each ethnic group must be developed inside its own little box, whereas we see the position as being that South Africa should be developed in terms of a federal system, as one whole South Africa.

My task this afternoon is to develop further the argument raised by the hon. member for Houghton, and come back to the $64 000 question facing South Africa, namely how we are going to treat the urban Blacks. The hon. member for Houghton has dealt with the question of housing, and it is my task this afternoon to deal with a very important aspect of their development, that of trading. I am referring to trading by Blacks in Black areas and also the question of White trading in Black areas.

Let me start off with the first aspect, the trading of Blacks in Black areas. We know that up to 1976 Blacks were very restricted in this regard. Certain concessions were, however, granted them in 1976. For example, the requirement that they could trade as partners and companies provided these were tied up with the homelands, was removed. We are pleased with the number of concessions that were made allowing them to trade in a number of different categories in which they could not trade before. Even today, however, they are still subject to certain extensive restrictions. For example, they may only trade on one site, the site must not be larger than 250 square metres, Ministerial approval is required for trading on two sites, ministerial approval is required for conducting more than one business if a company is involved, and in the formation of a company, only individuals from the same township can be members of the said company. There are also a large number of conditions in terms of which a superintendent may terminate their business activities. One such condition is if they sell or deliver their goods to Whites outside their particular area or if they deliver them to members of another group, if they are absent from their businesses for a period not permitted by the superintendent, if they are convicted of an offence in terms of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act or an offence under the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Act, if they are 30 days in arrears with the payment of their rent which, incidentally, is also a criminal offence in terms of the Act, or if they do not undertake repairs in the period stipulated. This also applies to professional people. My question is therefore: How do the Black people react to this? Let me quote the reaction of someone as prominent as the chairman of the National African Federated Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Sam Motsuenyane—

Our plea to the hon. the Minister this afternoon is therefore to break the chains that bind the Black traders to the archaic past to which they are tied at the moment. That is our first task.

The second question relates to trading by Whites in Black areas. This is a very important aspect, one which may form a principle and a precedent. I think that the hon. the Minister is aware of an application for development in Klipspruit. By some quirk of fate the main Potchefstroom road running right through the heart of Soweto encroaches on a piece of ground which is zoned as “undetermined”. It can therefore be zoned for anything. It does, however, fall under a White group area and it is therefore zoned for Whites. Applications were made firstly by one set of entrepreneurs and then another. Then the two combined to lodge a massive application for a hypermarket and a shopping centre right in the very heart of Soweto, a Black area, an enterprise to be run by White entrepreneurs. They were prepared to spend something like R20 million. They were going to develop an area of 50 000 square metres which is half a million square feet. They aimed to put up 150 shops and a great hypermarket for the Whites. I heard what was said when the application was made. They said that they would hand it over to the Blacks in 20 or 30 years’ time. They said they would train the Blacks to use the shops, that they would eventually themselves have the shops and that this would be of benefit to them. The Black traders however, of whom there are some 2 000 in the township of Soweto, will suffer very greatly if this development were allowed in Soweto. They themselves do have a Chamber of Commerce and they are opposed to this development. They have pointed out that approximately R150 million is spent in the White city of Johannesburg by the Blacks and that they hoped to capture something like 30% of the market, i.e. a turnover of something like R35 million. The Blacks in Soweto say that they do not want to be taught by the Whites how to run supermarkets and that they are sufficiently able to run their own businesses themselves. They have a scheme at Jabulani where they are to develop their own businesses and shopping centres, and they say they can, in fact, raise the capital to carry this out. The chairman of the Town Planning Committee has, in fact, said that from a town planning point of view he can see no objections. That may well be but he has blinkers on and cannot see beyond the purely town planning aspect. However, just think of the implication! Think of the precedent that is being established if one allows White entrepreneurs to operate in the heart of a Black area. Their answer to this is very clear. If one is prepared to allow the Blacks to trade in the White areas—we on this side of the House say one should allow them to trade in the Adderley Streets and Eloff Streets of South Africa—then it is fair to allow the Whites to trade in their areas. However, one must not tie their hands behind their backs, criple them in their trading in the Black areas, refuse them the security of tenure to raise their moneys and then expect them to compete. It must be done on an equal basis. On behalf of this side of the House I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to stop this application. According to Press reports representations have been made to the hon. the Minister in this regard. I think Mr. Sam Motsuenyane in fact came to see the hon. the Minister. We on this side of the House would very much like to know what the results of those discussions were. The hon. the Minister may well be able to turn round and say that the application is not before him. That may well be true, but in view of his power within the Cabinet he can persuade the hon. the Minister of Community Development to declare that area a Black area, thus thwarting this whole scheme. I am sure that there would be no objection to the entrepreneurs being compensated adequately for the area of ground they have there and for the trouble they have taken.

If one should allow this to happen, the question arises of the role the community council has to play. Is the hon. the Minister going to consult the community council with regard to this important precedent? If one allows this as a precedent in Soweto, one must allow it as a precedent for all the Black areas in South Africa. I know that the Urban Foundation think that joint partnerships should be established and that joint money should be made use of. Only where the Black townships want that assistance themselves, only where they want those funds, can it be a matter for negotiation. However, if they do not want that assistance but feel that they can provide that development themselves, they must not be treated like children. They are sophisticated adult people who are able to develop their businesses on their own and they should be given every opportunity to do so.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether in fact he will consult the community councils that have been established and particularly the one in an area like Soweto so that a precedent will not be established. If he wants the community councils to be a success, they must be given teeth, as we suggested when this matter was debated in the House previously. The hon. the Minister promised the community councils that he would not only give them teeth but that he would also give them autonomy. I believe that this debate provides the hon. the Minister with the opportunity to spell out what autonomy means; what the phases towards autonomy are; when the necessary steps in that direction will be taken; and when they will finally get full autonomy. One must not forget that the hon. the Minister himself persuaded them to take part in the elections—albeit that only 6% of the people did so—and that he stated that the people fought the elections on the basis that they changed their minds because they were going to get autonomy. Now we and the people of Soweto and of all the Black townships want to know precisely what autonomy means. If one wants the people to develop, I think one must give them proper leasehold over the property one has promised them to give them the necessary security to obtain money for their businesses. As in the case of the White man, the Black man must have security of tenure. I may say that the hon. the Minister has disappointed us greatly and I think we are now very confused as to what exactly leasehold of 99 years means. The hon. the Minister has, for example, already mentioned that if they fall foul of section 10 they lose their leases. We on this side of the House appeal to the hon. the Minister to grant them freehold title. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow made a big fuss about what he considers the Black man’s right to trade in White areas and, conversely that Whites to open shops in Black residential areas. I do not want to go into this in detail, but in the course of what I want to say, I shall come to the major problem underlying the matter which he discussed so piously today.

This entire debate and the speeches which hon. members opposite have made in connection with Bantu affairs thus far during this session, have been characterized by their appeals for justice for the Black people. A heavy, dark cloud of the socio-economic problems with which we in South Africa are struggling in connection with the Black people, hangs over the whole debate thus far, especially as regards Black/White relations. Two elements which darken that cloud considerably and dramatically, are elements which that party never looks at, but they should look at them in order to gain perspective regarding the problems of South Africa. The first of the two elements which darken the cloud hanging over the relations situation, is the tremendous, unbelievable population growth rate among the Black people in South Africa. If hon. members could just get it into their heads that almost 50% of the Black people in South Africa are under the age of 15 years! To that they must also add the tremendous developmental lag of the Black people in South Africa, and then they will have a little more perspective about the socio-economic problems in the variety of spheres of life in South Africa. Then they will not constantly seek to accuse the Government of being guilty of a lack of housing, welfare services and other facilities which they should like to see provided for those people.

If we want to be honest with one another— I think we as Nationalists are honest enough to admit this—in the light of the two great realities, viz. the tremendous growth rate of the Black people in South Africa and the tremendous developmental lag, about which I do not want to express an opinion, we must admit that our ideal of separate development, too, has been overtaken. It is no use trying to argue with one another about it. We in South Africa are faced with a factual situation where there are millions of Black people outside their own territories, when we should have liked to see them living in harmony as nations. In the Bantu homelands we are faced with problems in connection with economic development. The relevant hon. Deputy Minister is struggling with those problems as a result of the developmental lag of those people.

I want to tell the Opposition once again—I shall tell them so repeatedly—that there is no perfect solution to the Black/White relations situation in either the political or the social sphere. In fact, our solution is not perfect. I want to go so far as to say that our solution is not even a good one in many respects. However, once we have said this, we must ask ourselves: What do those hon. members have to offer as regards the socio-economic problems of the Black people in our urban complexes in particular? What better solution do they have to offer? If we say our solution is not perfect, not as good as we should like it to be, we must choose from the best of the possible solutions.

I cannot always quite follow the hon. member for Houghton. I do not know whether she is a liberalist or a socialist or what. Once again in her speech yesterday she spoke about housing problems. We actually praised her and said her speech was a mild one. Actually, she hinted that if we should continue with the levies which Black people have to pay, we are going to be faced with conditions like those which we had in 1976: riot conditions. She is nodding affirmatively, and is therefore agreeing. I want to ask her: Whilst the Government has to struggle with this tremendous problem and whilst we have to spend tremendous amounts on defence against the onslaught of communism on our border, where, in heaven’s name, must we find the money? She and her party are doing us a great disservice by always telling the Black people that the money is readily available and that we can have all these things done without trouble.

They must settle the matter for themselves. The basic element which we need in our struggle for continued existence in South Africa, is sound economic growth, economic growth based on the free enterprise system— therefore, the capitalist system—in which everyone in South Africa—the Blacks as well as the Whites—must share so that we can have continued growth from which everyone in South Africa may ultimately benefit.

You must change your policy.

The Black people in South Africa are irrevocably doomed to poverty and misery in the years ahead if this Government continues to provide them with services on a subsidization basis. The growth rate and the extent of the problem are simply getting out of hand. It cannot be done. There must be sound, sustained economic growth. I do not want to argue with hon. members about their political policy, because I think we have completely removed the political kernel from their policy in many respects, so that they look like fools to the world and the Black people in South Africa. Their policy is not saleable either. Our future will ultimately be determined by whether the Black people—this is a very important aspect—are going to buy our policy.

Does the world buy your policy?

One of the most important elements of our policy which is saleable to the Black man, is what has already been done for these people as well as the share which we offer these people in the overall socio-economic set-up in South Africa. Those hon. Opposition members are doing us and themselves a great disservice, because whilst we want to establish foreign confidence in South Africa’s future, they continue to tell the world that it is our policy which has resulted in the Black people not being able to obtain the things they want in the practical sphere. If we cannot restore the investor’s confidence in South Africa, we are saddled with an economic problem. The problems of the Department of Plural Relations are practical ones, we can solve these problems with money and we need confidence to get hold of that money. If we can get hold of the money and stimulate the economy, I believe that it should not be done on the basis of subsidies, as the hon. member for Houghton wants, but on a basis of free enterprise and free participation by all in a strong, growing economy. In this practical way we can do the right thing by the Black people in South Africa.

In the final minute at my disposal, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he and his department—I am not asking for a commission of inquiry—could not please urgently investigate a tremendous problem which is building up in our larger urban complexes. I am thinking here in particular of the presence of thousands upon thousands of Black people outside residential areas, people who in many respects are becoming poor appendages of the White civilization. I am absolutely convinced that if the Black homelands should be poor appendages of wealthy South Africa, if the Black residential areas should be poor appendages of rich cities and if the Black man were to be, in his own eyes, a poor appendage of a rich man, there is no future for the Whites in South Africa. On the basis of our policy of diversity, on the basis of our policy of retention of identity, on the basis of our policy of eliminating friction and on the basis of our policy of justice and fairness for all, I believe that we can succeed in moving together in peace and harmony. There are tens of thousands of Black people living in White residential areas in a place like Pretoria, and this gives rise to an untenable situation. If we take a good look at the explosive potential of White/Black relations in South Africa, I want to maintain that the presence of people living in ever-increasing numbers in our larger urban complexes like Johannesburg, Pretoria and elsewhere, out of the family context and the community context, are in many respects a disease which we shall have to look at. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Innesdal has shown once again that there is a great deal of understanding for the tremendous progress which the Black people are making in the socio-economic sphere here in South Africa. I shall not amplify everything which the hon. member said, but I do want to associate myself with him, chiefly in the economic sphere. Other speakers who have participated in the debate have already mentioned that an increasing material prosperity is to be found amongst the Black income earners in South Africa. This specifically highlights the question: Where does this money come from, where does it go, and how is it going to be applied? I should like to dwell on this for a few moments and just refer briefly to a few figures.

According to calculations, the total purchasing power of the various Black peoples in the 1970-’71 financial year was approximately R1 900 million, which represented approximately 22% of South Africa’s total purchasing power. Only about R400 000 of this was available in the homelands, while the rest was available in White South Africa. In 1974-’75, the position was similar. It has been found that the total purchasing power of the Black peoples for that period amounted to approximately R3 700 million. These figures indicate that on an average, only a quarter of the total Black purchasing power in South Africa is based in the homelands. It also becomes apparent that only 50% of this quarter is spent in the homelands. It is well known that the Black buying public is particularly sensitive to prices and tries to spend its money at those places which offer the best quality, the lowest prices and the largest variety of goods. Thus far, the Black dealer has been in an unfavourable competitive position in comparison with the White dealer, and that is why we find that the Black buying public gives preference to the White shopping centres. It was interesting for me to note from an investigation by the Small Businesses Advisory Bureau of the University of Potchefstroom that the order of considerations which influence the Black public in deciding where to buy, is the following: Firstly, the question of price; secondly, the proximity of the product to the public; thirdly, the quality and freshness of the product; fourthly, the variety of the goods; fifthly, loyalty to their own community; sixthly, treatment by the shopkeepers and, seventhly, the availability of credit. It is interesting to compare this information with the Afrikaans business life and its establishment. I believe I can rightfully say that the factor which the Black buying public places fifth of their list of priorities, viz. loyalty to their own community, the Afrikaans community placed right at the beginning. They often did without things because they felt a need to support the Afrikaans enterprise, and in this way they achieved a great deal of success.

Of course, there are various reasons for the fact that only one quarter of the Black purchasing power is spent in the homelands. One of the most important reasons is probably the places of employment of the earners, the size of the commercial centres in the Black townships and the nature and quality of the services offered. However, it is very encouraging that the Economic Development Corporation as well as the National Development Corporation have already succeeded in creating a variety of investment possibilities for the Black people in their respective independent territories. A recent investment in kwaZulu serves as an example, I believe, of the success which the corporations have achieved with their schemes and it also serves as an example of the interest, even though it is a dormant interest, taken by the ordinary Black investor in the development of his territory. The example I want to refer to is that 190 000 R1 shares in a chain store business near Madadeni at Newcastle were offered to the Zulus. When the offer closed, 206 independent applications for more than 47 000 shares had been received. I understand that further applications are still being received. As the Financial Mail reported, this is not an Ergo, but it nevertheless shows encouraging signs that the Black investor is already moving into spheres which were foreign to him in the past. In the latest edition of the annual report of the Economic Development Corporation, reference is made to another field which the Black income earner has recently entered and in which he has already achieved a great deal. Special reference is made to the savings banks managed by the Economic Development Corporation. In 1977, the corporation managed 52 savings banks, which of 22 were situated at gold and other mines. There were 110 000 depositors in 1977, and the deposits increased from R15 million in 1974 to R23 million in 1977. The funds mobilized by these savings banks are also utilized for expanding the various development actions and will henceforth also be used, it seems, to finance housing in the homelands.

At this stage, the most important commodity of the independent Black territories is definitely the labour which they export. However, the greater part of the income of the labourers flows back to the White territories. Therefore, the Black territories are not deriving the greatest benefit from this export commodity at the moment. The capital which stimulates economic growth and creates further capital is flowing away in excessive quantities. Although a great deal of success has already been achieved, everyone should support the utilization of this capital in their own territories and promote it whenever possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Eshowe will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument. I want to raise a specific matter with the hon. the Minister and with the responsible hon. Deputy Minister. Yesterday, by way of interjection, I asked the hon. the Minister what about Blacks in the western Cape. He then suggested that I should raise it in the debate itself, which I have every intention of doing now.

The hon. the Minister has made it clear in Press statements that the 99 year leasehold right for Blacks in urban areas will not apply in the Western Cape. Furthermore, during the debates on a number of Votes the Cape NP members of Parliament indicated that they believe that the western Cape must be regarded strictly as a Coloured preference area and that Blacks should have no rights in the Western Cape whatsoever. The hon. members for Oudtshoorn, Kuruman, Durbanville and Moorreesburg have all made contributions very much along these lines, viz. that the line should be drawn at Humansdorp. The hon. member for Moorreesburg specifically stated that Blacks should be regarded as foreigners with no rights at all in the Western Cape. He went even further and urged the Government that wherever possible Blacks should not be employed in the Western Cape.

I want to put a number of specific questions to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, is his statement that the 99 year leasehold rights will not apply to Blacks in the Western Cape his final word on the subject? Secondly, does he agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg that Blacks should be regarded as foreigners with no rights in the Western Cape? Thirdly, what is his attitude towards the thousands of Blacks who have been in the Western Cape since before the turn of the century? Let me try to illustrate this. By the end of the 19th century there were 10 000 Africans living in Greater Cape Town and making a substantial contribution to the development of a modern city. We know that for 140 years men and women have moved to the Western Cape from the Eastern Cape, Transkei and elsewhere in South Africa to live and work. It was essential for the development of Cape Town itself, and in particular the docks, that African labour was sought for and brought here. By the 1890s there were approximately 1 800 Blacks housed in barracks near the docks. So one could go on illustrating that the Blacks have been in this part of South Africa for a very long time.

The fourth question I want to put to the hon. the Minister is the following. Is it his belief that the Western Cape should be regarded forever as a Coloured preference area, and if so, how does he view and how does he respond to the Coloured leadership who dispute this whole policy?

Fifthly, does he believe that the basic laws of economy can be bent in order to further Government ideology? What about the major employers in the Western Cape who are dependent on Black labour in order to keep their businesses going? What about the Post Office, the Railways, Escom, Koeberg and many others who are using Black labour right now? Are the hon. the Minister and his Government saying that this, too, must be phased out, no matter what the economic cost?

Sixthly, is not his policy—and I ask these questions very seriously—basically a repressive labour policy which says in effect that when the economy is depressed, the Blacks must leave the Western Cape and special consideration must be given to other groups, while in a time of economic boom, Blacks can be brought into the Western Cape again, not on a permanent basis, but on a migrant labour basis?

Seventhly, does he believe—and here again I say this very seriously, having listened to the hon. the Minister yesterday—that God has placed us in families, and if so, how does he reconcile this with the break-up of family life which is the direct outcome of the policy which he is now advocating?

Lastly, does he believe that it is right and normal that Black workers who are living in Cape Town, have been living here for a very long time and are required for the economy of the Cape to be employed, should be forced to live under abnormal circumstances in single sex hostels? Is this the kind of South Africa that the Creator—according to the hon. the Minister’s words yesterday—has given to us for us to share?

I believe that it is important not to overstate my case.

(Mossel Bay): You have already done so.

There is still a lot more to come. Listen to this. If the hon. the Minister and his Government are adamant in their view that Blacks in the Western Cape are to be seen as a series of labour units rather than as people who are part and parcel of the South African community, then I believe it is not worthy of this hon. Minister, and it is a policy which must be rejected in the strongest terms. Therefore, choosing my words, I say to the hon. the Minister that this policy, as enunciated, is inhuman. Secondly, I say that it is immoral.

Absolute rubbish!

I say thirdly, that it is unchristian because it transgresses the basic tenets of the Christian code. [Interjections.] This tragedy is compounded by the fact that not only is it all these things, but it is unrealistic. It simply will not work. In other words, people will be moved from pillar to post, devoid of security and permanence. They will lack housing and the basic human facilities which are part of the very fabric of life. Hostility will be aroused, race relations will suffer, and all to no avail.

Thanks to you.

This is all to no avail, because there will be Blacks in the Western Cape for ever. Yet, despite this, this hon. Minister, who comes on the one hand bringing with him benefits to urban Blacks, is going to deny this to Blacks who are living and working and will be living and working for ever in the Western Cape. This policy is politically, economically and socially an absurdity, such as so many other policies that have failed. I urge the hon. the Minister with real seriousness to abandon this wishful thinking so that his pipedream does not become a nightmare for all South Africans in the future.

There are scores and scores of people in the Western Cape who are appalled at the recent announcements made by this hon. Minister and by the Government. This whole tendency one sees certainly in the speeches made by certain hon. members who represent constituencies in the Western Cape and who make it absolutely clear that a line must be drawn. It seems to me that what they are saying in effect is that beyond Humansdorp is a Black preference area. And what about this side of Humansdorp? Is this going to be the final laager? Is this the laying down of the line so that in the end the White man will be forced to come and live, together with his Brown brothers, in the Greater Western Cape because of the pressures that are upon us? I do not believe that. Therefore I urge the Government, and this hon. Minister in particular, to make the announcement today, in this debate, and to say that 99-year leasehold will be given to Blacks in urban areas throughout South Africa because they all work here, they are all human and they all need housing. I plead with the hon. the Minister to make that announcement.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands has been beating the old drum again. In doing so he proved only one thing, and that is that he and his party are the advocates of those thousands of Black people who are in this area illegally, people who live in utmost misery, many of whom are unemployed. But their cause is championed by these hon. members and by other White apostles, people who tell them that they can come here and they will be looked after here.

I am certain that this speech of the hon. member for Pinelands will again be used in Black countries and homelands to attract still greater numbers of Black people to the Western Cape. The hon. member for Houghton is laughing about it at the moment. But that is the message emanating from her and her party. [Interjections.]

What is unchristian, what is immoral about the NP advocating a policy which seeks to bring a sound and good family life to these Black people within their own areas, especially in view of the fact that the Government does not spare itself, and even prejudices itself, in trying to bring these things about? This debate on the presence of Black people in the Western Cape is spreading over a wide field. There are many views and statements in regard to this issue. The advocates of the removal of Black people from the Western Cape are able to find sound motivation for their case on grounds of history and common sense.

The hon. member for Pinelands quoted from the booklet South African Outlook, a booklet containing an article on the presence of Black people in the Western Cape. I could have thought that it was not his own work. He is not capable of it. It is a fact that the Black people have been in the Western Cape for a long time. But during the rule of the NP they have never been given to understand that they are regarded here as a permanent part of the population of the Western Cape, no matter for how long they might have been living here.

The NP is governing, and the sooner the PFP stops wanting us to implement its policy, the better it will be for all of us. They expect virtually the impossible from us. The viewpoint of the NP is very well motivated. The presence of Black people in the Western Cape is purely temporary. This is a labour preference area for Coloureds and Whites, and even the Erika Theron Commission, of whose report they made great play, underlined this point. They, too, accepted it.

A second point we have been taught by history—and we do not run away from it—is that we fear being ousted by other population groups whose numbers exceed ours. We make no secret of that. For that reason, and also to prevent unemployed people sitting on our doorstep, we introduced, inter alia, influx control.

What about the White people in Rhodesia?

The White people in Rhodesia did not implement our policy. If only they had implemented our policy!

A third important point in this connection is the inevitability of eventual political rights should final legal permanence be granted by giving freehold rights to these people. This, in terms of the policy of that party, would result in Black majority rule over the whole of South Africa. That is what we do not want. If we did not oppose this as we do, we would tacitly be implementing the policy of the PFP, because we would be creating expectations amongst the Black people, and eventually they would be taken to the point where there could be only one of two outcomes; civil war or the abdication of the White man. We are trying to prevent both these eventualities by means of the policy we implement. That is why I say that we have good reason, especially in the Western Cape, to resist Black infiltration at the rate at which it is taking place. What are the facts? There are many thousands of Black people in the Peninsula and environs, the Southern Cape Bantu Administration Board area. We have the figures in this connection. What we find very gratifying is the fact that over the past year the numbers have decreased by approximately 17 000 males. There are various reasons for this. There are noticeable reductions in all employment categories. In my view there are two reasons for this.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I am pleased the hon. member for Houghton is also pleased that there are fewer of them in this area. [Interjections.] The first of the two reasons for that reduction is probably the decline in economic activity. I think there are fewer applications in connection with Black labour since there are fewer employment opportunities at this stage. In September last year, according to the statistics, there were 2 000 Blacks who were legally in the Peninsula area, but were unemployed. I think the present figure indicates that there are about 3 600 Blacks in this area who are here legally but are unemployed. That party wants to attract still more to this area so that there will be more misery, more suffering and more unemployment for the Blacks and the Coloureds here. [Interjections.]

Die Burger of 25 April, of which those hon. members were very avid readers, too, gives us a figure of 40 000 Black people who are illegally in the Greater Boland area. Let us look at file number of employers who have been prosecuted because of the employment of unregistered Black labourers. When we do so, we find that 1 400 of them were prosecuted in 1975. In the same year approximately 35 000 Black people were prosecuted for being in the area illegally.

At Crossroads—and I am surprised the hon. member for Pinelands did not refer to this—there are about 3 000 families still squatting there, which represents a population of approximately 18 000. If we accept the findings of one of that party’s own supporters, Dr. Frances Wilson, a quarter of the people living at Crossroads are illegally in the area. This means there are 750 men there illegally. If we add their families to this, we get a total of 4 500 people. In any event, all the women and children are in the area illegally.

Not all the women.

Virtually all of them. Dr. Frances Wilson gives the position. If I had the time, I would have read the quotation. But the hon. member can read it himself just now. Because of the Blacks who are living illegally at Crossroads and elsewhere in the White area, the NP, the Government and South Africa constantly have to endure the censure and the scorn of the world. We are castigated for allegedly acting in an immoral way with regard to these people. Does the whole world—particularly on the basis of what that party advocates— wants us to have a guilty conscience about these people?

The replacement of Black labour in the Western Cape must necessarily coincide with the development in the Coloured people of a desire to work and protect what is their own. There is one clear voice which is a voice of reason in this connection, and that is the voice of Dr. Bergins. I do not have the time now to deal with all the others. I want to say this afternoon that the Whites in this part of the country have had enough of the incursion of our residential areas, our streets, our suburbs and some of our coastal areas by Blacks. There is a stream of protest from Sea Point about the Blacks living there, who give birth to Black children, who grow up in Sea Point, who pollute the streets and the coast, who live their lives as idlers and who are taking over the place. We have the same stream of protest from Hermanus, Port Elizabeth and virtually the whole of the Western Cape. In spite of the public stand taken by certain Brown leaders, we know of thousands of Brown people who feel as we do about this matter, and that is that the Blacks must be kept out of this area which is reserved for the Whites and the Brown people. People who do not support this objective are wearing American spectacles, because it is the American fashion to speak only of Black and White in South Africa. They do not see the Coloureds or the Indians at all.

That is why we plead for drastic steps to be taken to clean up the Western Cape, gradually and without disruption. We hope that eventually it will be quite clean. We believe that illegal Blacks should be removed from the area immediately. We believe that all the unnecessary Black labourers should be removed from this area immediately. These are people who put petrol in our motor cars and who walk the horses up and down, work we believe could be done by other people. We believe that in the matter of Black labour which is necessary, we should rather concentrate on recruiting single people in an attempt to obviate family problems. We believe that Black labour should be made more expensive so that it is immaterial to the employer whether he employs a Coloured or a Black worker. We believe that the penalties for employing Black people who are present here illegally should be made much heavier. To those Blacks who are really needed here and who fulfil a useful function, we shall be as good as we possibly can for the duration of their stay.

In the few minutes still at my disposal, I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister or the hon. the Minister. As far as Crossroads is concerned, we know that at one stage Transkei accepted responsibility for its citizens, and we should like to know what their attitude is at this stage. We should like to know whether they have accommodation for their people who are at Crossroads at present. I also see from reports in this booklet and elsewhere that there are apparently White organizations that are active at Crossroads, organizations that are engaged in obtaining permanence for those people at Crossroads. I should like to know whether this is so. I should also like to know whether it is true, as is shown by certain surveys which have come to our notice, that most of the inhabitants at Crossroads have been living there for 15 years and more. I understand there is a growing trade at Crossroads. I should like to know, therefore, whether those traders have licences to conduct businesses there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as this debate progressed, in spite of some undertones of responsibility on the part of the Opposition and signs that they do in fact agree, there have nevertheless been cases like the ridiculous remarks by the hon. member for Hillbrow about the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister who preceded him. It reminded me of a certain line in a popular song which is particularly relevant to the Opposition of today. The line in the popular song goes—

I just want to modify this slightly and say: “How small they are and how little they know.” It is true, in the first instance, that they have literally become small. As regards the figurative side, however, we can discuss that at a later stage. They have become so small that they have virtually become a miniature Opposition in South Africa. Just look at them sitting over there! They occupy only a small area in this House. Of course, there are many miniatures. There are miniature plants and miniature animals. However, they all have one thing in common and that is that they have no practical value whatsoever. They have amusement value only.

I want to continue. As far as the Department of Plural Relations and Development is concerned, I want to say that in spite of the fact that the former Minister initiated this new dispensation of community councils, that it is his brainchild and that he announced it, the new Minister’s understanding and realistic approach to the matter has resulted in such a positive disposition amongst the Black people of South Africa that the implementation thereof is progressing apace. During the six months we have been engaged in this matter, as many as 57 community councils have been established, seven of which held elections and are already functioning. Just to give the opposite side of the story, I want to point out that over a period of 16 years from 1961 up to and including 1976, we had succeeded in establishing only 24 urban Bantu Councils. This illustrates the tremendous progress that has been made and the fact that today the Black man in South Africa positively accepts the community council scheme. Positive acceptance of this scheme is only logical as far as I am concerned, because it emanates from and has grown out of the Black communities themselves to their own benefit. For the first time in history, the Black man is going to have his problems solved by his own elected representatives. I think that these people will also begin to develop an understanding for the services rendered to him by the White man in the past, the White man who has always been responsible for solving the Black man’s problems for him.

It is said that the councils will ultimately have more power than the White municipal councils. This, too, is being welcomed. They will have rights in respect of financial aspects as well. Some of these are particularly applicable as far as adjustments are concerned, but due to a lack of time I shall not go into them. The Opposition, for instance the hon. member for Houghton, makes great play of the low percentage polls in these council elections. However, there is another side to the matter. To be more specific, we have had percentage polls which were as high as 76%, in Alexandra for instance. It is only logical to my way of thinking for the percentage polls to be low initially as the Black man still has to learn how to use and implement this new right which he has obtained.

I want to come back to the Bantu Affairs Administration Board situated in my constituency. To my colleagues who are involved and to me personally, it is a matter of great pride that the first community council elected in South Africa, was elected in the area of jurisdiction of this very Bantu Administration Council. This council is functioning very well and very successfully. Without any fear of contradiction, I want to say that real racial harmony exists in the Vaal Triangle. There can be no doubt about that. I want to read what the chairman of this community council, Mr. George Thabe, said when the Minister visited this council on one occasion. He said—

I go on to read what he said in his budget speech about the Bantu Affairs Administration Board—

He went on to say—

This is how Black and White talk to and about one another in the Vaal Triangle.

I just want to give you a brief sketch of Mr. Thabe. Some people will say that he is a marionette and a stooge of the Government. However, this man is one of the natural leaders amongst his people. He is, inter alia, the chief of the Black soccer federation of South Africa. He is a natural leader and it was quite natural for him to be elected as chairman in the election. This is the man who says these positive things about our Government and its policy.

Having said all this, I want to draw the attention of this House to a few very important aspects. In 1948 there were a few small locations, as they were called at that time, in this area. Since that time there has been phenomenal development in this area and at the moment there are approximately 300 000 Black people living in the area of whom—I am mentioning this purely as a matter of interest—167 000 are economically active. This is a very high percentage. What is the real fact behind this whole history? Even during the riots we had a time ago, there was absolute peace and quiet in this area. It was possible to prove that the few isolated incidents which did take place, had been stimulated from outside. Sharpeville is situated in this area, Sharpeville which used to be an emotionally-charged focal point. In this area we have this fine co-operation and goodwill of White and Black towards one another. What does this amount to? This area’s physical development as well as the development of its human, race and ethnic relations has taken place thanks to the policy of the NP. It is the brainchild and product of the Government. Surely there can be no doubt about this.

This brings me to the old, hackneyed phrase of the Opposition that the Government’s policy in respect of the Black man and its approach to the Black man are responsible for deteriorating communication between White and Black as well as for the deteriorating circumstances. The Vaal Triangle is living proof of the fact that an argument like this is completely unfounded.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sasolburg dealt with various points which will be covered by the general drift of my speech. He is one of a number of hon. members who elaborated on particular aspects of the overall responsibility of the department. I should prefer to return to the mainstream of the debate and the department and start by referring to the words of the hon. member for Mooi River on the importance of the department.

†I want to take it further by saying that the department controls and is responsible for the pivotal issue in South African politics today. If we talk in terms of our long-term security in South Africa, the ultimate security in South Africa, then I would say that this department is more important in that security than even the Department of Defence with its R1 500 million budget. It should be borne in mind that this department is directly involved with the struggle for the hearts and minds of Africa. That struggle is moving to a climax which blasts any illusions which we may still have that there is plenty of time in South Africa, that we can leave it to our children to solve our problems as long as we can create a temporary balance. The reality is, however, that it is now, today, that we face the issue, stark and inescapable as I believe any thinker realizes it is. Some, in fact, say that we are already playing in extra time.

I do not want to deal at length with this, but I believe it has to be put clearly on record that there are three contestants in this struggle: Russia which believes that victory goes tó the strong and which is fighting with the mailed fist, with violence and with strength; the West which believes in diplomacy, in the economic carrot and which is using the velvet glove; and then we have the contestant who has in his hands the strongest weapons, the unbeatable weapons in this struggle—South Africa. We are in Africa, we are of Africa and not outsiders who are trying to muzzle in, trying to get into Africa. We are insiders who want to stay here and we are the only contestant in this struggle with a common interest and a common cause with all the peoples who live around us.

The question which I believe is in everybody’s mind here and elsewhere—the question asked by South African Whites—is: Which way will the Blacks go? Will they go with us or will they go with the glittering illusion of so-called liberation? Our own Blacks, the Blacks in South Africa, are asking themselves which way they should go. Should they go with the Whites or should they go with this illusion of liberation? I believe that many leaders of the Coloureds and the Indians are waiting to see which one is going to win.

The answer to this question that is in everybody’s mind, lies with this department and in the hands of this hon. Minister. I believe that South Africa has the best offer to make to the Black people of South Africa. We have it and we can offer it, but the question is whether we are going to offer it. If we are going to do it and if we have the will to make them the best offer in order to win the hearts and minds of our Black people, then we must be seen to be doing it today, now, not for some future generation, for children to come or for the years ahead, but we must be seen to be doing it now. I agree with the hon. the Minister that there is tremendous potential goodwill available to the White man in South Africa. That goodwill is there and it is waiting to be exploited. That is why we in the NRP are so anxious and that is why we are trying so hard to initiate new thinking and a new debate. We believe that the present road that South Africa is marching along, is heading to a dead end. It is heading to a dead end and it can provide no solution to the real issue that is before us, i.e. who is going to win this battle for the minds and the hearts of the Black people.

In passing I want to disagree with those who say that the Official Opposition, the PFP, have not got a policy. I believe that they have got one and I believe that another aspect of it has been clarified in this debate. It is just that they are a little shy about it and a little shy to put it forward. One thing became clear, however, and it now stands in Hansard for all to see. The hon. the Minister asked the PFP whether they stood for a “eenheidstaat” …

You are wrecking a good speech.

I am trying to get clarity between us; let us get clarity and please do not be so squeamish and so scared of the facts. The hon. the Minister stated the following—

The hon. member for Musgrave, their national chairman, as did their Chief Whip who is reported in Hansard as having said: “Quite right.” We therefore now have a clear statement of policy, i.e. that of a multiracial, integrated unitary State …

Not a unitary State.

What is a “eenheidstaat”? If that is not unitary, I do not know what is. I shall leave them, however, to argue that out. Their name says that they are a federal party and they claim to stand for federalism …

You slipped that word in, did you not?

That is what is in Hansard for everybody to see. The hon. Chief Whip said: “Quite right.”

In the second place we know that the Official Opposition rejects ethnic identity in the recognition and the exercise of political rights. Am I misquoting them? No. They accept it. They therefore reject any ethnic identity in the exercise of political rights as a differentiating, distinguishing or discriminating factor. They therefore stand for a common political system and in the third place—there is not argument about this—they reject any form of residential exclusivity. They believe that every area in South Africa must be open for ownership and for occupation by anyone. Am I doing them an injustice? No. They are silent. [Interjections.] No. I am trying to create a real debate and, in doing so, I have established three areas in which we in the NRP clearly differ from the Official Opposition. In passing I wish to compliment the hon. member for Houghton for her new phraseology with which she dressed up the old arguments that we have heard from that party. We stand, however, for pluralism with linking mechanisms. We stand for the accommodation within the political structure of this pluralism and we stand for the right to have exclusive or open areas. All three of these standpoints are in direct contradiction to those of the PFP. That is why I had first to establish what the PFP stood for before I could say whether we agreed with it. They would not say it, so I had to establish it. It is now established and I want to say that we disagree on these fields.

Let us now look at these three issues and start a real debate.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his courteous gesture to afford me the opportunity to complete my speech.

†We have provided now, I believe, a starting point from which we can have a real debate. We know where the Official Opposition stands, we know where we stand and we are getting near to establishing where the Government stands. Let me start then by defining what I mean by pluralism. I want to quote from The Plural Society. This is one of a host of definitions from various books. The author is Rabuska who on page 20 quotes Furnival as follows—

Unit?

Yes, in the same political unit, the same political system. The Government itself, in a booklet issued by that same hon. Minister in his capacity as Minister of Information, says that their policy is an attempt to find—

That is the hon. the Minister’s definition of a plural society. I get this definition in his department’s publication issued to the Coloured people on the new constitutional plan. So, we are now clear that when I talk about a plural society I am talking about one political system, one political entity and one political mechanism in which different societies can participate. That defines then the territories within which we operate. The PFP has the territory of an integrated society to themselves; the Government has the territory of a totally separated system with independent States, and the NRP has the clear and defined territory of a structured co-ordination providing joint decision-making on matters of common interest. [Interjections.] I believe that defines the territory over which we should be debating.

It is as clear as mud.

The PFP is squealing. If I have ill-defined their policy, in heaven’s name, let them get up and tell us what it is. If it is not what I say it is, then let them say it. [Interjections.] All right, let me say they exclude themselves from the debate. Let me then debate with the Government because that is what is important. The PFP excludes itself from any participation in real debate. [Interjections.] All they can do is to criticize and ask the Government what they are going to do. We, on the other hand, are trying to put alternatives which we can talk about.

Let me deal, firstly, with the Government’s alternative. The hon. the Minister talks of a family of nations comprising the homelands, totally independent, and carved out of a fragmented South Africa into a balkanized South Africa. Despite the talk of a total threat to South Africa and despite the talk of a total defence strategy, we are breaking up, in the name of “eie seggenskap”, South Africa into these separate entities floating around in a vacuum and held together only by the tenuous links of the hon. the Minister’s consultation and renounceable treaties in some sort of a family. That clearly establishes the extent to which the Government will go. Surely we have learnt our lesson? That is why I have called for a moratorium on any further continuation of the policy developing homelands to independence, because we in the NRP believe we have to offer a third choice to the homelands of South Africa, one which will bring them into a structured system in which they can have “eie seggenskap”, own responsibility, control and decisions over their own affairs, but join in “medeseggenskap”, joint responsibility and decision-making, on matters of common interest. I do not have time to develop that idea, but we have done so before. However, I want to emphasize what the hon. member for Mooi River has emphasized, namely that we in the NRP believe that if we do not keep them in our galaxy, revolving around our nucleus in which we participate, they will seek another nucleus which will draw them away from us with more glittering links than we are offering them today. It is madness to go ahead with the granting of independence when one has not settled the issues of citizenship and land.

I briefly want to refer to the “never-to-be” South Africans and to call on the hon. the Minister to now appoint a high level Theron/ Fagan/Tomlinson-type of commission, including on it urban Blacks, to make an in-depth investigation in order to identify the complex new Black plurality which has developed in our urban areas and cities, and to identify their aspirations. Let us then sit around the table and talk with them. It would be a tragedy if the hon. the Minister were to earn the curse of future generations by having consciously and deliberately created out of our citizens a new “uitlander” problem, with new “uitlanders” waiting to be exploited, not by a British Empire, but by the Russian Bear.

Finally, I want to address a word to these weak-kneed, so-called, “verligtes” who have fallen flat on their faces over the Eiselen line. In this debate we have identified our territory. I am trying to take the debate outside to run parallel with the one we are debating here. I wrote an open letter to one of these “verligtes” who talks about “medeseggenskap” viz. Dr. Willem de Klerk, the columnist of Rapport. Rapport refused to publish my open letter. I have released it. In that open letter I challenged Rapport to substantiate its claim that the Government stands for “medeseggenskap oor sake van gemeenskaplike belang”. I have all the quotations here. The hon. the Minister has said there will be no “medeseggenskap”, but that there will be “raadpleging” and no more. It is clear that an element within that party, elements of its Press and of its political scientists and thinkers, are talking in terms of a new dispensation in which there is a linking mechanism to deal with matters of common concern. I want to challenge those who call themselves “verligtes”, those who are so weak-kneed that at the crack of a whip they run away from it, those who allow that hon. Minister to clamp down on their thinking and to get away with this vague idea of a “family”. I say to them and to South Africa that this family, of which the hon. the Minister talks, is meaningless rubbish, unless it includes a mechanism for linking together those with a common destiny and a common interest, with a share in deciding on the issues common to all of us. It must not simply be a consultative body … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am just rising to react briefly to what the hon. member for Durban Point said and to ask the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition a few questions. I shall not reply to the rest of the debate now; I prefer to reserve that part of my speech for later. However, to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a chance to react in this debate, I want to put a few questions to him after I have dealt with hon. members of the NRP. The hon. the leader of the NRP made a serious, honest attempt to make a contribution to the debate so that we could argue about the real points of difference in connection with this complicated question of South Africa, i.e. those of human relations and the fact that there are different peoples joined together here in one geographic territory and that they must work out a future for themselves here, on some basis or other, in peaceful co-existence. I appreciate the standpoint and I appreciate the attitude. I also appreciate the frankness of his approach. One can argue against his type of argument. I want to add that my problem with his policy lies in the joint say in the umbrella body, as he put it and explained it here, on certain matters of common interest. To my mind that constitutes a problem.

By agreement.

By agreement. Does it in reality mean consensus then? This is all it can mean. Let us be realistic. We are speaking theoretically now. In this umbrella body there will be, according to numbers, representatives of the White Government and also of the eight different Black Governments. I accept that there will also be representatives of the Coloureds and Asians.

It will be a community of nations. Now, a matter of common interest is discussed and there is a difference of opinion on it. Everyone has his own approach to the matter. What decision is made there, and how is it made? If the hon. member tells me that they must reach consensus, that everyone must ultimately agree, and if they do not agree, no decision is going to be taken, I find it has this advantage that they can argue until unanimity is achieved, and once this has been achieved, this is what is applied. But at the same time, that system allows every one of those members the veto right. If one of them says: “No, I do not agree”, there is no consensus. Then no decision is made and the matter is left hanging in the air. This is actually my problem with the hon. member’s whole approach.

It depends on the basis of the agreement.

Yes, and we can argue about this. My objection actually remains that the moment I grant the right to make a decision on that level which can be forced upon individual members, it means that if I must have a vote on the normal basis, things can be forced upon me, as well as upon the other peoples, things which are against their wishes and which they do not want. I am not prepared to have this done to the Whites, and I assume that the smaller Black peoples, the Coloureds and the Asians, are even less prepared to have it done to them. This is in fact my problem. The hon. member and I can exchange ideas about this further when we come to it again.

There is an answer to that situation.

Our standpoint is very clear. I think I can best illustrate it, although it is not a precise equivalent, by the difference between the approach of the USA and the approach of Western Europe. Let me quickly state the case as I see it. In the USA one also has the North American subcontinent and a number of people live there. There are a certain number of Whites, a certain number of Blacks, Red Indians, etc., therefore various groups. There they decided on an integrated unitary state—PFP policy—and in it they have carried out the system of “one man, one vote”. With certain concepts …

What about the Senate?

If the hon. member for Groote Schuur would only hold his tongue sometimes, he may become clever too. [Interjections.] The fact is that the value of every vote is not equal. A small state like Iowa chooses two Senators, while the huge state of California. [Interjections.] All it means, is that those people have a system of “one man, one vote”. Everyone has the vote.

But they are not all equal.

However, it is a unitary state and everyone has the franchise. It is an integrated unitary state, a state in which a majority of votes ultimately decides what will happen.

The position in Western Europe is quite different. Over the centuries the separate nations of Western Europe have divided it into separate national units—as a result of wars, negotiation, etc. The subcontinent of Western Europe is ultimately divided into national units. In spite of all the theories, a Western European Parliament with a say over every component State is not yet working in Europe.

It is making progress.

They are trying their best, but it does not work yet. They could not even get everyone drawn together in the EEC because the individualism of every State, and the national awakening is such that it simply cannot be done. Our system is cast in precisely the same mould in the sense that we in South Africa also have a system of “one man, one vote”. However, here it works on the basis that the Zulus vote for a Zulu Parliament under a system of “one man, one vote”, while the Xhosas vote for the Transkeian Parliament under the same system. Similarly, the Whites vote for the White Parliament on a basis of “one man, one vote”, and the Coloureds vote for their own Parliament on the same basis. We have a system of “one man, one vote” throughout. However, we have no problem with the overall concept because we do not draw all those people together in one Parliament. This is the difference. This is our approach.

We could draw everyone together in one confederation.

I am stating the NP’s policy here.

Now I want to devote the rest of this short speech to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and ask him a few fundamental and pertinent questions. I am deliberately asking them at this stage of the debate in order to give him the opportunity to enter the debate and enlighten us about the relevant aspects. Indeed, I believe it is essential for South Africa to know about them. That is why I am creating the opportunity for it to be done now.

For a long time we have been seeking clarity about precisely what the PFP intends. I have a pamphlet here which they published— a pamphlet which I specially obtained— entitled “Security through negotiation”. Basically, this pamphlet contains a speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—If I remember correctly—made in September last year at some or other congress in Johannesburg. It was meant to be a speech in which the policy of the PFP was set out. The few slogans of the PFP were clearly defined as slogans in that speech. However, I do not find any seeking for a true standpoint on policy in this speech. There are only general slogans about equal rights for all, about favouring some group or other, etc. However, I do not find any exposition of a policy as one could have expected. The closest which I have yet come to an exposition of the policy of the PFP, was when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke in the debate on the Indian Affairs Vote. I quote two things from the speech which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made in that debate. In the first place he says (Hansard, 27 April, col. 5764)—

In the second place the hon. member said—

The basic policy is therefore that every citizen must have equal rights and that he must not be discriminated against in any way.

In the pamphlet in which the policy of the PFP is set out, a very high premium is placed on the so-called national convention. It is already common knowledge that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that, should he become Prime Minister one day, should he win an election one day, his first reaction would be to phone certain Black leaders and call them together with a view to a national convention.

Not for a convention; for a discussion.

Very well, for a discussion then. Let us rather not split hairs. I am not trying to score debating points off the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am trying to establish facts. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will call leaders together to arrange a national convention.

[Inaudible.]

But it is very clear. I quote from the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

There is no new constitution yet. The new constitution must still be drawn up—

In other words, the existing constitution should lapse and, according to the Official Opposition, a new constitution will be drawn up at a national convention where all sections of the population will be represented. I want to quote the relevant words once again, because I want to discuss them—

I want to ask a few questions about the concept of “sections of our people”. Is the PFP in favour of a multiracial or multinational State? Their point of departure is still multiracial. Must I therefore accept that each one of the various races will be represented at the convention? Is there going to be one delegation on behalf of the Black people, or are there going to be delegations on behalf of the Zulus, on behalf of the Tswanas, on behalf of the Sothos, on behalf of the Vendas, etc.? Are they going to recognize the multinational character, the ethnicity, of the various Black peoples at this national convention? In other words, is every one of the peoples going to be represented, or is there going to be one delegation which will represent the Black race? This is basic and it is important that we should know.

There is another question I want to ask. Will the independent homelands of Transkei and Bophuthatswana also be represented at this national convention? Are they going to be there, or are they no longer part of the group which is going to be consulted by means of the national convention? I should like to know this. I should also like to know—and I am eagerly awaiting the reply; the opportunity is there to give us the reply—whether the three former protectorates which are situated in Southern Africa, will be represented.

Oh, please!

The hon. member must just answer my question. If he says “no” I shall accept it, but I want to give him the opportunity to say “no”. I also want to ask how the delegations are going to be constituted. Are there going to be three delegates per nation? For instance, will there be three Zulus, three Vendas and three Sothos, or are there going to be three Black people together with three Whites, three Browns, etc.? Are the delegations going to be constituted on that basis, or are they going to be constituted according to the numbers of the peoples? Since there are 5 million Zulus, are there, for instance, going to be five Zulus as against one of each of the other groups? I should like to know how this national convention will be constituted. For instance, are the Zulus going to have more representatives than the Coloureds or the Vendas or the Asians at that convention? [Interjections.] I want the answers. Hon. members must please provide the answers.

How did you decide the Turnhalle representation?

The hon. member must not become irritable now. I merely want answers to my questions; that is all. The hon. member’s leader can reply. I do not think the hon. member need to help him; I think he is man enough to reply for himself. [Interjections.] In any event, I hope he is man enough to reply. But, Sir, I want to continue. How is the constitution finally going to be decided upon at that national convention? How are they going to decide if there is a difference of opinion at the conference? For instance, if the Zulu delegation decides that a specific matter should be decided in one way while the Whites think that it should be done another way, how is a decision going to be reached? Will there be voting at that national convention? Will the voting be by delegation or by member? [Interjections.] No, the hon. members must struggle with these problems. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot simply sit there shaking his head. If he does so, I shall hear what is in his head!

I did not even shake my head!

I should like to know how that convention is going to make decisions. Will there be negotiations? If unanimity is not reached, will there be a stalemate? If they do not think so, I can tell the hon. member now that there will be a stalemate. I want to assure him that this will be the case, because the ideals of the different nations, are surely not the same.

What is going to happen when one day you have a convention?

When I sit down in a few minutes time, the hon. member can make a full speech. He can rise and talk about this for 10 minutes. He can even take up more time than that.

Would you like to know the town where we are going to hold the convention?

There is another question which I should like to ask. Suppose one of these peoples chooses a member of the Communist Party as its representative at the convention.

That is a really tough question!

If an official, self-acknowledged member of the Communist Party is elected as a representative at this convention, will the hon. member accept him?

What about a Chinese?

I see how irritable the hon. member with her little feet is. [Interjections.] I just want to know whether they will accept such a person. I want to go further. Some of the ANC and PAC leaders are also members of these peoples. If the PFP comes into power and calls the national convention, will they allow these people to be elected to serve on those delegations? Will they accept those people as delegates? Are they going to allow those peoples’ presence there. Will they listen to those peoples’ standpoints?

You are just running away from your policy.

No, I should like to hear the hon. member’s reply. I am not running away. I want to ask the hon. member who the chairman of that convention will be. [Interjections.]

Order!

I expect a reply to every question.

Ask us what we are going to serve for lunch at that convention.

Sir, as soon as that party is asked a pertinent question about their policy, they do not even have the decency to sit and listen like a man. Then all they do is make loud, nonsensical interjections. I am asking the hon. the Leader the question and I am awaiting a reply from him.

I still want to ask one or two questions. When this convention is held, and the constitution is drawn up in this way, or in whatever way it may be drawn up, now is he going to make sure that that constitution is acceptable to the general masses? Is he going to present it and hold a referendum? Will the voting at that referendum take place on the basis of “one man, one vote”? Will everyone in South Africa share in the approval of the constitution or is it not going to take place on that basis? To what extent is the nation going to have a say in the matter? Then, just the following: Considering the pattern of what is happening at present to South West Africa and Rhodesia, is the outside world going to recognize and accept this convention of his and his decisions if the extremist, radical parties are not present and do not participate? In the case of South West Africa they are demanding the participation of Swapo and in the case of Rhodesia, that of the Patriotic Front. In our case they are going to demand the participation of the PAC and the ANC.

Mr. Chairman, there seems to be some consternation about whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can answer in 10 minutes. May I therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether he would allow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition three consecutive 10 minute turns in which to reply? [Interjections.]

Order!

Of course a debate is arranged by the Whips, but I want to say at once that I am prepared to give up 20 minutes of my time to give the hon. member a proper chance to reply, because South Africa is anxious to hear the replies. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have now asked a number of pertinent questions. In my own reply I shall provide the answers to questions which have been asked of me. I see the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just entered the Chamber. I know that he has the courage to reply to these questions if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not. In actual fact, he has already begun to reply to the questions because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has refused and is still trying to avoid the questions. I am deliberately asking these questions at this stage of the debate in order to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to tell South Africa what his standpoint and the standpoint of his party on this matter is.

Mr. Chairman, if ever there was a red herring by an hon. Minister who was in trouble, it is the red herring this hon. Minister has pulled across our path today. [Interjections.] Here we have a Minister putting a number of questions to the Leader of the Opposition at a time when he has already made a mess of his department … [Interjections.] … and at a time when he has said that he proceeds from the standpoint that one of these days there will be no more Black South African citizens.

*The moment he said that, he was caught in his own trap.

†He is not going to extricate himself from that. Frankly I think that he has his mind on other things. This was a red herring. I started writing down some of the questions, but quite frankly I believe that the hon. the Minister was childish in the extreme when he asked the Official Opposition, at this stage in South Africa’s history and with a parliamentary ratio of 17:135, who the chairman of the national convention would be. This is ridiculous! That was a ridiculous, childish question put by an hon. Minister who is in trouble. He knows that his homelands policy is falling apart at the seams and he knows that he has no answer whatsoever to the cardinal issue of how Blacks and Whites are going to take joint decisions in the common areas of South Africa. This all arises from the hon. the Minister’s misconception of a national convention. He thinks one picks up telephones and has national conventions.

That is what you said!

I did not say that should be done in order to have a national convention, but in order to consult. I have made that quite clear. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that, just as he accepts that the hon. member on my left had some constructive points of view, he must accept that as regards the concept of a national convention, or call it what you wish, we have indicated time and time again that it should be an on-going process of negotiation which, we believe, in the end will culminate in an agreement on a new system of government for all of us in South Africa. It is not a one-day jamboree. It is not a getting together of people in order to see how divergent their views are. It is to do what the hon. the Minister is starting to do himself. He has had released from detention a gentleman by the name of Dr. Motlana, who was one of the Committee of Ten. He is flying him down here to discuss with him the future of his own policy. Is he going to make modifications to his own policy in the light of what he hears from Dr. Motlana? If he does not do so, what is the point of bringing him down? The concept of a national convention is the concept of an ongoing negotiation in order to reach agreement between the various elements of our South African society. Represented in this process of negotiation must be the legitimate and elected representatives of the various elements in the power structures which may be there at that time. I do not know, for instance, whether by the time we get into government and initiate this on-going process of negotiation there may not be five completely independent homelands who would then not be included in the initial negotiations that could take place. It is, however, quite possible that, as a result of this on-going negotiation within what is then South Africa, they could invite other people to become involved, as we have argued they should be involved with us, on a confederal basis. One starts off with the elements of power within our own South African society. If at the time the ethnic factor is an element of power, any sensible Prime Minister would have to recognize that as one of the elements of power which one has to bring into this process of negotiation. We are not arguing about that. Quite clearly, if as a result of history or as a result of the policies of the previous Government one is left with a legacy of ethnicity as a factor of power, one has to bring the leaders representing those ethnic elements together in order to try to reach reconciliation. There are other elements. There may well be regional elements. There may be regional leaders who do not represent an ethnic base but a regional base. I think that they should be brought in.

For example?

Well, one might for instance in Natal have a community of interests representing all the people in Natal.

I also believe that, before one can come to a final decision, one has to scrap the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and one must allow multi-racial political parties to develop. To the extent that there is a sharing of power, to the extent that there is a significant body of people in South Africa who are a factor of power on a shared basis, I believe they should also send representatives. One has to look at the nature of the power structure of the South African society at the time when one comes to negotiate a new constitution. Take Mr. Ian Smith as an example. If the hon. the Minister had put the same question to Mr. Ian Smith two years ago, he would have replied that he was busy negotiating with Mr. Joshua Nkomo. Two years later he was negotiating with Bishop Muzorewa, Rev. Sithole and Chief Chirau because at that stage these people represented the new elements of power. He has not yet tested whether they are the real leaders. That is one of the problems. In due course, post hoc, he has to hold an election to see whether those people really have the power base within the society. It might well have been better if that power base had been tested by free elections in anticipation of those negotiations. Mr. Chairman, we do not want to hide the issue. We believe that if the hon. gentleman on my left were to become the Prime Minister of South Africa, he is going to have to conduct negotiations and is going to have to represent …

That is the basis of our policy.

That is the concept of negotiation at a national convention. It is the concept of bringing together people, those who represent the effective power structure of the society at any stage, in an on-going process of negotiation. The hon. the Minister asked who should represent people. People must decide for themselves who must represent them. One of the problems of the NP and the Government is that it decides who shall represent various people. Let the people be free to choose for themselves how they should be represented and who should represent them. Let us also realize that this process of negotiation will take place against the background of an on-going Government in South Africa.

For how long?

If negotiations break down, we shall start again. We shall carry on governing, getting rid of discrimination, removing from South Africa the points of tension so that one will gradually get a reconciliation of views, under a PFP Government. Let us, in this House, face up to the situation. It may be possible to separate from South Africa parts of South Africa in the form of independent homelands. However, in the heartland of South Africa, in the industrial and the economically vibrant areas of South Africa, Black, White and Brown people are going to have to take joint decisions on some basis or other. They are going to be collectively responsible for the security, the progress and the survival of the country. The hon. the Minister knows that the areas of separateness are reducing and that the areas of common ground are growing; and if there is going to be a basis for common ground in the future, it will have to be decided upon by the properly elected leaders of the various elements of the society at that time. We believe this and the hon. the Minister knows it. I want to prophesy that even this Government—perhaps after the present hon. Prime Minister has gone because his commitment goes against a negotiated settlement in South Africa—or whatever White party sits in this House, will in due course have to sit around a table and meet face to face with the elected leaders of the other sections of the community in order to find common ground. This is what we are committed to. [Interjections.] We say this openly. In due course the hon. the Prime Minister and that hon. member are also going to have to do this in practice.

That is our concept of the national convention—bringing elected leaders of ethnic, regional and common interests together over a period of time, and as consensus grows, getting agreement on a new pattern of constitutional Government in this country.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition how big the delegation is going to be? Does this mean that one person will be designated for each nation or for each group? I want to extend the question by asking how decisions are ultimately going to be taken. Will it be done by way of vote or by way of agreement?

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get involved in the details of the situation … [Interjections.] I shall deal with it in general terms. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider historical precedents. Can he name any national convention which was nominated on a per capita basis? I cannot think of any. If one thinks of the national conventions in America or the convention which preceded the Union of South Africa, one sees in every case they had to represent the realities of what was there. They had to represent the power structure to the extent that there was a balance so that one could get some equity between all elements. That is not a per capita basis per se. The Turnhalle certainly did not have a per capita basis. The Ovambo were represented through their delegation, as were the Damaras and others, irrespective of their numbers. At the time of Union the four provinces were equally represented. It was not a question of a head count at that stage. What it has to do is to represent the fabric of the society as it is. I want to be quite frank with hon. members. I do not know what the fabric of the South African society is going to look like after this Government has mauled it for another few years. It is ripping apart the fabric of the society and it is making consensus more difficult. It is making it more difficult to get together. The hon. the Minister asked about a vote. I have never heard of a national convention which decides on a fundamental restructuring of a constitution on the basis of a simple majority. It did not happen in the Turnhalle. In the Turnhalle they met and first reached consensus, on the declaration of intention. They then appointed a constitutional committee which sat for months. They consulted their legal experts and then, in plenary session, thrashed the matter out and in the end managed to reach a significant degree of consensus. It is likely that this is going to be changed again when the new constituent assembly is elected in a couple of months’ time. I want to say to the hon. the Minister and his colleagues that I believe that they are being very, very childish in this matter. They are running away from fundamentals. Forget the homelands for a moment. If they can sever them from South Africa with the goodwill and the good wishes of the people concerned, good and well as far as their policy is concerned. However, in the common areas of South Africa we in this Parliament have to face up to the fact that while we have sovereign power and while we control the authority of the State, there are other people in South Africa who are growing in power and in stature outside of this Parliament. We have to bring together and to reconcile these various elements. It is therefore not a question of a simple head count or a question of a “one man, one vote” at a national convention, but a process of ongoing negotiation between the elected representatives of the various power elements within the society.

Is the hon. member aware of the fact that two days ago the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in this House that the representation at this convention would be proportionate to numbers? [Interjections.] That is what is what I read in the newspapers. Did he say so? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

You are just trying to score cheap debating points.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having, with clever strategy, drawn the hon. member for Sea Point into the debate and exposed him completely. The dilemma of the hon. member for Sea Point is that he does not know who the truly elected leaders are. If the hon. member would only listen, we might be able to have a meaningful debate about who the truly elected leaders are. However, he evaded that question. Why? The hon. the Minister asked whether it would be based on ethnicity and whether the leaders of the homelands, dependent or independent, would also be invited. The hon. member for Sea Point dare not reply to that. Why not? It is because the hon. member for Sea Point and his party—perhaps not the whole party, but in fact the substantive part of it—are caught between the poles which are developing in South Africa outside this Parliament. What are those poles? Those poles are, on the one hand, the Mandelas, the Oliver Tambos, and on the other hand, the homeland leaders, people who have become significant Black leaders. The dilemma of this hon. member, therefore, is whom he is going to invite to the national convention. If he says that he will invite Mr. Buthelezi, he will be confronted with the rejection of his policy by Mr. Buthelezi, and in this connection I refer to an article that appeared in The Citizen of 4 December 1976. Seeing that Mr. Buthelezi has already rejected his policy, will he be able to invite Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo? Mr. Buthelezi will then definitely take serious offence, and rightly so, as I shall indicate shortly. We have, therefore, the development of these poles. We in the NP have seen this coming for a few years. It has now become a reality and is forcing that party—I see the hon. member for Yeoville is listening; he is intelligent enough to realize this—into a tight comer, worse than the one they suggest this party is caught up in. The NP’s approach is to create political parties amongst the Blacks, because we want to develop a national consciousness amongst them. We have succeeded in doing this, and in this way prominent leaders have come to the fore, men like Messrs. Matanzima, Buthelezi, Mangope, Lennox Sebe and others. A further result of the NP was that these people soon distinguished themselves in Black politics and that they themselves soon started forming a pole opposite the self-appointed leaders, i.e. Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and others who are no longer with us. A further result of this has been that the Government is no longer regarded as the obstacle by the power-hungry people, for example the ANC and the PAC. Who is now regarded as the obstacle? The answer is Chief Minister Matanzima, Chief Buthelezi and others. If the hon. members do not want to believe me, the time has come for them to look at the very serious development in Black politics outside Parliament. There is a conflict situation of which the PFP should take cognizance and which they were instrumental in causing. The fundamental point at issue is: Who is the real leader? Winnie Mandela, the friend of the hon. member for Houghton, said with reference to the release of Nelson Mandela—

Therefore the question is: Who are the real leaders? Is it Nelson Mandela or, on the other hand, Chief Buthelezi?

Let us consider the development of this polarization further. At a trial in Pretoria a member of Swapo said that he was more representative of the Blacks than Chief Buthelezi although he had only been elected by students. I want to request the hon. member for Sea Point to pay some attention …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if not of innate courtesy: Would you like to give a ruling on whether the hon. member may continually refer to the Leader of the Opposition as the hon. member for Sea Point or whether he should, in the proper parliamentary, constitutional way, refer to him as the Leader of the Opposition.

Order! I do not think that that is a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is able to answer my next question, I will always address him as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition: Does he admit and realize that there is in fact a dispute about whom the real leaders are in Black politics? [Interjections.] That is the question he has to answer. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition says that he does not regard Nelson Mandela as a truly elected leader, we will have no quarrel with him. [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in fact, regard Mr. Nelson Mandela as the true leader above, for example, Chief Buthelezi?

Can the Blacks not decide for themselves who their leaders are?

Do you want to decide for the Blacks or are they allowed to decide for themselves?

I am putting the question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Mandela has not been appointed the leader in an election. There was, however, an election which showed Chief Buthelezi, without a doubt, as the leader of his people. Those are the poles which have developed outside Parliament, and those hon. members know that these people will not meet around a conference table. [Interjections.] Therefore I repeat my question: Whom does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition regard as the truly elected leader: Mr. Mandela or Chief Buthelezi? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to answer. Is that not an insult to Chief Buthelezi, because surely there can be no doubt about his leadership? Are we to infer from this that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is no longer interested in having Chief Buthelezi’s goodwill? Is that the conclusion we are to reach? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to development in politics outside Parliament. As I have said, as the powers develop which are not vested in the bodies which the Government has established and the powers which have resulted from those bodies, the PFP will find itself in a situation where it will be forced more and more to the left. The PFP will find itself in a position where it will finally have to choose between the powers which know no parliamentary development of authority, and the NP and the Black political bodies which were instituted by us, i.e. the homeland Governments and their leaders. Those are the poles which are today developing in the real Black politics in South Africa.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition can make one contribution and that is to accept and to admit that his party has contributed towards the creation of an outdated concept of South Africa, the concept that the Black man has not enjoyed or experienced any political development. However, the fact is— as I have tried to indicate—that certain bodies have received political power and that these bodies have developed to such an extent that their elected leaders can, in fact, be regarded as the truly elected leaders of Blacks. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would admit this to the outside world, that in itself would help us, because as far as this matter is concerned, we want Parliament to take the same view with regard to defence and foreign affairs, i.e. the projection of the idea that we offer the Blacks equal opportunities to practise and develop their own politics. Furthermore, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be doing us a very great favour if he would admit at the same time that the NP has proved its bona fides beyond all doubt in this connection, as appears from the many references—today as well—to the hon. the Minister’s visit to community councils and the opening of the sessions of homeland governments, etc.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss a completely different aspect of our policy. This may help the Opposition to find a way out of the great dilemma in which they find themselves at present.

I should like to speak about the consolidation of our Bantu States. It is one of the most important key-stones of our policy. It is a matter which is of the greatest importance and the utmost urgency to our country at this stage. We have been working on the consolidation of the homelands for decades. It is an expensive process we have to go through, but it also arouses very great interest and expectations amongst our people. We should realize that land is one of the most important aspects of any country’s economy. This applies to the homelands just as it does to any other country. When one knows where one’s country is and whether one’s land is consolidated, one can plan accordingly. The Opposition should also consider—it might help them—who the leaders of the Black nations in South Africa are, where they are living and where their countries are.

Before 1972 the consolidation of the homelands actually took place on an ad hoc basis. Offers were made left, right and centre, and land was bought accordingly. However, since 1972 the consolidation process was far more orderly. Hon. members will remember very well that since 1972 maps have been published by the department of possible consolidation models of the homelands. That was followed by meetings of the Bantu Affairs Commission and consultations with the agricultural unions and other important organizations. In 1973 an active start was made with talks in the Northern Transvaal with the Ciskei and in 1974 talks were also begun with kwaZulu and the Ciskei, and afterwards with Bophuthatswana. Gradually this programme of consolidation took shape.

In 1974–’75—the figures are available from the department—much larger sums were already being allocated for the consolidation. As a result of this the large scale buying of land was started in 1974–’75, but at the same time—and this is an important aspect I want to point out—expectations were created among people because they already knew whether or not their land would fall within a consolidation area. People looked forward to the rapid completion of these consolidations. In the six years from 1967 to 1972 R64,2 million was spent on purchasing approximately 481 000 ha of land, but in the next five years—one year less—R177,1 million was spent on the purchase of 556 000 ha land. That is almost three times more than in the previous six years. If one looks at the area of land already bought, one should remember that, according to the 1936 Act, a promise was made to buy approximately 6,3 million ha land for the homelands. Until now 5½ million ha have already been bought. Almost 800 000 ha still have to be bought. During the past 11 years more than 1 million ha was bought for an amount of approximately R241 million.

I now want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. In the first place people once again want to know which priorities are set down for the purchasing of land. This has been told to the people, but they still have new expectations and they would really like to know which priorities are now being set and when their turn will come. Various questions were also put, all of them with a view to the possibility of buying land more rapidly.

We all know what the answer is to the question of why the consolidation of the homelands cannot be proceeded with more rapidly. It is the lack of funds. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not present to participate in this debate, because the decision about funds may rest with him. People have already made suggestions us to how funds may be found to expedite the purchase of land. The people have already told us that they are prepared to make sacrifices. Is it not possible to add a levy of 1% to the taxes that they pay in order to get the funds to complete this consolidation process quicker? We know there are a few Black spots which have already been cleared, and the following question has also been asked: Can these Black spots not be resold more rapidly to the White farmers in order to obtain the funds which can be used for further purchases more rapidly?

I should like to put three requests to the hon. the Minister. In the first instance these are concerned with the “compassionate cases”, as we call them, with the consolidation of homelands. As people heard that their land would fall in the areas which were going to be bought, they prepared themselves for that day. There were people, who were perhaps at that stage too old to carry on farming, or maybe they were too ill, and they were already looking for a buyer for their farms, but because the farms now fall in these areas, their farms are immediately out of the buyers’ market, and they have been sitting waiting four or five years already for their land to be bought. In the meantime they have, of course, grown older, or perhaps it became more difficult for them to farm. Those people want to know when they can expect their land to be bought. In our area in the middle of the Northern Transvaal there are numerous cases of this type. These people have also tried to carry on farming, but they cannot get the labour. This is because the Blacks who used to work for them, say to them: We are not going to work for you, because this land belongs to us; we are going to get it.

The other day I visited a farmer who is almost 65 years old. When I drove out to where he was working in the fields, he got down from his tractor and he was covered in dust. Then I asked him why he was sitting on the tractor. He replied that I would not find a single Black on his big farm to help him. They merely say that the land will belong to them and they do not want to work there. These are really compassionate cases to which one should pay attention. The money that was allocated this year for the purchase of land is not even enough to meet the needs of these compassionate cases. Can something not be done to obtain those funds quicker.

In the second place I want to refer briefly to the valuer who has to evaluate this land. These people are drawn from the private sector and it costs about R¾ million every year to pay these valuers. Is it not possible to devise a plan so that the department could perhaps appoint these people. Perhaps only 10 with a permanent salary? They would also need a vehicle. This brings the total to R150 000 or R200 000. In this way almost R500 000 can be saved.

I should really like to make an earnest plea to the hon. the Minister to make renewed efforts to obtain the funds in some way or other to complete the consolidation of the homelands as soon as possible. This will give the people, Black as well as White, more security on what their standing is. It will also give the Black States the opportunity to plan their own areas, their own states, and to determine at this stage which negotiations they would subsequently enter into with our Government to exchange land to make the consolidation more meaningful, as one of the Opposition speakers—I think it was the hon. member for Musgrave—pointed out yesterday. I think all of us will be prepared to make these sacrifices for South Africa in order to complete this consolidation as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Potgietersrus touched on a very serious problem in talking about rural areas and consolidation. I want to return to the problems of urban areas, however. I am sorry that the hon. member for False Bay is not here now. I should have liked to react directly to a speech of his. I am delighted, however, to notice that the hon. member for Moorreesburg is present in the House.

From what the hon. the Minister said, it appears that he would like the Black people in our urban areas to live in stable communities. The hon. the Minister made that clear. As the hon. the Minister said, it should be in conditions of the least possible unemployment, in circumstances in which the crime rate is low and in which there is a strong spirit of community solidarity. Furthermore, it was apparent from what the hon. the Minister said that he would like these communities to be prepared to help themselves by creating and utilizing community facilities and by proving that they themselves want to better their position. One such community is the one at Crossroads.

Every hon. member, including the hon. member for Moorreesburg, can go there and see for himself whether what I have said here contains any grain of truth. It is only a 20 minute drive from here. If hon. members go there, they will also notice that 75%—as the hon. member for False Bay conceded, although in some surveys it is put even higher—of the heads of households there have a permanent job. Hon. members will find that it is not a bunch of layabouts and won’t works who live there. They will also find that those people are employed by companies like Murray and Stewart, Savage and Lovemore, by the S.A. Navy, the S.A. Railways and Harbours, etc. That is where those people work.

Hon. members will also find that those people did not sneak here from the Transkei or the Ciskei yesterday, or the day before yesterday, that they did not turn up overnight, but that more than 33% of the people at Crossroads have been in the Western Cape since 1949. They will also find that 59% of the males among those people have been here in the Peninsula since 1959.

Furthermore they will find that Crossroads is not the first place in the Peninsula where many of them have started squatting, but that they also come from places like Steenberg, Philippi, Vrygrond, Brown’s Camp and other places in the Peninsula, places where they have been squatting before. At Crossroads hon. members will find that those people have on their own, virtually from nothing, erected for themselves a community centre, as well as two schools and a church. In other words, hon. members will find there is a small permanent community which is maintaining its community solidarity under very difficult circumstances. They will also notice that with the assistance of the divisional council, water is provided, nightsoil is removed and a mobile clinic provides medical services there at least once a week.

Nobody who goes there leaves again without having been struck by the fact that those people are proud of what they have accomplished there in the most wretched circumstances. Nobody who has been there can leave without being aware of the fact that those people came together as a result of a very human need. That need is to live together as families. Given this incentive, this motivation, what has happened at Crossroads until now by way of community development is nothing short of a miracle. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister know that there is a sword hanging over Crossroads. That sword hangs on the umbilical cord of official policy and if that umbilical cord breaks, it will be the end of Crossroads. Then it will be destroyed.

Two arguments which are officially put forward are keeping this sword over Crossroads. The one is the so-called preference policy for Coloured labour. From every point of view, this is economic, social and political nonsense. The reasons which the hon. member for False Bay listed apply a hundred times more in the case of the Whites in Johannesburg, a hundred times more in the case of the Whites in Bloemfontein. I shall list them for him: That it is historical territory; that they are afraid of being swamped. Are the Whites there not afraid of being swamped then? Another reason is that they will have to receive political rights if one makes their ownership rights permanent. Does the same not apply in the case of Soweto? Why should it not apply there? Another reason is that an attempt must be made to avoid a civil war and to avoid White abdication. Why should those same arguments not apply elsewhere in the urban communities? None of the reasons which the hon. member put forward is in any way valid when it concerns the question of why the people should not receive residential rights here, apart from the whole question of citizenship. Therefore I say the policy is economic nonsense, also in the sense that one would not solve the problem of Coloured unemployment by making Blacks unemployed as well. Nowhere in the world has unemployment been solved by increasing unemployment. [Interjections.] According to the Die Burger the hon. member said that himself. He said those people must leave the Cape; even those people with rights of permanent residence must be phased out. It does not matter whether the man has been working here since 1946; he must go. The hon. member said that himself, but now he is asking who said it. It is economic nonsense to want to do that.

It is not only economic nonsense, however; it is absolute madness. If a man is unemployed, he is unemployed whether he is White, Brown or Black. He remains an economic and social problem. If there are enough of them, it becomes a political headache like the one we have. I know the Cape MPs of the NP believe they mean well with this policy. I know that; they say they do. It is good intentions of this kind, however, which pave the road to hell. They only create problems. They create endless problems and they solve absolutely none.

The second argument is that the majority of the men at Crossroads are entitled to be here in terms of existing legislation, but the women may not be here. Given that—we are not going to quarrel about it—I should like to put a question to the hon. members for False Bay and for Moorreesburg: Are they prepared to go and work away from their families for 18 years and to see their children once a year for three or four weeks and to find them strangers? Are they prepared to do that? Is there any White woman who is prepared to accept that?

If family life in South Africa is so sanctimoniously praised, those hon. members should also demonstrate that in the case of these people who came here to look for work. If they cannot demonstrate that, they should keep quiet.

You are using senseless arguments.

I am pleading unashamedly with the hon. the Deputy Minister as well as with the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development. In these difficult times in which we live, I am merely asking—I should like them to hear this—that the department should not be involved in the unnecessary disruption of settled urban communities. What is more: I ask that they should not be involved in demolishing a man’s shanty if he cannot be given or guaranteed alternative shelter.

You appeal for illegality.

I will deal with that in my second question. I request: Change the law so that it will be possible for a man who has a job …

To go and squat where he wants to?

No, but to have his family with him so that they can live with him, because if his family stays with him, he is a more stable unit in an urban milieu than when he has to wander around on his own and has to go and hide in single rooms. That is why I am asking that that man should be allowed to live with his family.

I am talking about Crossroads, but I am not only talking about Crossroads in particular. I am talking about Crossroads because the department is at the crossroads regarding its urban Black policy. The road which it is going to take from here will determine whether the children of all of us will be able to sleep in peace in 10 years’ time. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he wants us to take a new road, that he wants fairness, bargaining and negotiation. This must be demonstrated, at places like Crossroads as well, for if there is going to be wrath against us in future, it will not be as a result of the grand schemes that we announce. Nor will it arise from the good intentions which we want to broadcast to the world. It will depend on how we handle Crossroads and other places like Crossroads, such as Unibel and Modderdam, today. If hon. members are concerned about our image—I am referring here to the hon. members for Bloemfontein West and Innesdal, who are always talking about communication—they should realize that this is where communication breaks down as a result of the actions against these communities. I hope we shall be able to avoid such actions in future. I know about all the problems involved. There are indeed valid problems which the hon. members can put to me. At Crossroads, however, we have a testimonial to family life. Those are people who, in spite of setbacks and the trouble which they have had with the authorities, are determined to stick together as families, and the hon. the Minister is in a position to confirm that testimonial or to destroy it.

Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege during the past few months to move among people, and everywhere I found clear traces of the person who preceded me, the present hon. Minister of Education and training. I want to pay tribute to him for the task which he has performed and for the manner in which he has performed that task. One can see a clear path, and I immediately want to endorse what the hon. member for Rissik said yesterday. Wherever I speak to Black leaders—in the Western Transvaal, in the Cape, in the Eastern Cape or wherever—it is very clear that wherever there is confusion and frustration, we see—as the hon. member for Rissik said—traces of the liberalists.

However, I should like now to come to the Vote and discuss a few matters before I come to the hon. member for Rondebosch. The hon. member for Sandton spoke about Alexandra. I agree with him that unhealthy conditions exist there. Where conditions are not sound, I shall never try to cover up things. But the hon. member merely repeated a speech of two years ago, in spite of the fact that in June last year, he received a reply that R221 766 had been spent on services there. However, the hon. member said here yesterday that not a single cent had been spent there. However, the hon. member is thoroughly aware of the fact that the entire Alexandra area is being replanned and that approximately 30 000 Blacks will be settled there as single persons. The hon. member is also aware of the fact that Alexandra dates from the days of the late President Paul Kruger, that the properties are in the possession of Black owners, and that they must be bought out.

At the moment, as he knows, there are still 515 erven which must be bought out. However, I should like to conclude an agreement with the hon. member. I shall go with him to Alexandra and I shall do my best to improve those conditions as soon as possible so that there can be a decent area for the Blacks there, but then on his part he must go and speak to the voters of Sandton, Randburg and those places and persuade them to come to me and to say that they are prepared to pay double levies to have those services and those better conditions established there.

I want to have a word or two with the hon. member for Durban Central. He has implied here that the administration boards should really now vanish from the scene. He wants us to return to a system of local government which should have jurisdiction over the Black man in the White area. However, the very conditions which arose and which the local authorities could not control, with the result that in the areas of many local authorities, influx control became totally impossible, forced the Government to institute these administration boards. I am absolutely convinced that if the administration boards had not functioned during the past five years— and five years is but a very short period in a lifetime—there would now have been chaotic conditions totally beyond our imagination. In that case, we should now not only have spoken of squatters in the Western Cape. We should have experienced an influx at every single growth point throughout the country. They would have run like hares from one town to the other, indisciplined and uncontrolled. During the short time of their existence, the administration boards have taken upon them one of the most important tasks as far as relations between different peoples are concerned. They are at the contact point between Black and White in White South Africa, where the Black man comes to offer his services. I foresee a great future for these administration boards with the work they are performing, precisely because I know that the work which they have to perform is going to become more and more problematic, because the Black man in White South Africa is going to move over a larger area, and because I know that I can rely on those people for personal contact between Black and White, I cannot thank them enough for the work they have done in the past and are still doing. If it had not been for the action of the officials of the administration boards throughout the country, much more blood would flowed in our country during the demonstrations which took place two years ago. I should like to pay tribute to the staff of the administration boards. The administration boards will continue to exist as long as the Black man comes to seek work in White South Africa. I trust that that is clear to the hon. member.

There is another facet of the administration boards to which I should like to refer and which is never talked about. In consequence of what the hon. member for Cradock, the hon. member for Kuruman, and others have said, I should like to point out that it is one of the objectives of the administration boards to concentrate on the establishment of townships in the various homelands. To give hon. members an idea of what the administration boards have accomplished in the homelands on an agency basis, I want to point out that during the recent past, an amount of R189 079 000 has been handled by these boards for the establishment of townships. There is much talk of housing. But it is not merely a question of R2 000 to R3 000 for building a house. Of the R189 million which has been spent, only R70 million was for houses as such. The rest was for the establishment of an infrastructure. I can give the undertaking that in my dealings with every single homeland leader with whom I have contact, I shall advocate the meaningful establishment of townships in homelands, so that the people can feel happy there. That coincides—as the hon. member has indeed said—with commuting. They want to have their people back or they will give their people back, and that is that.

Permit me now to return to the hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. member for Pinelands. In concluding his speech, the hon. member for Pinelands said something which really struck me. He said it was “most inhuman, un-Christian and immoral” not to permit people to sleep with their families. That hon. member was labour adviser to Anglo American, which employs thousands and thousands of migratory labourers on the mines and throughout the country. At the time, however, not a word was said about this question. [Interjections.] That hon. member, other hon. members and the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition—I shall not attack him now—have never expressed their opposition to the fact that thousands and thousands of servants who live in blocks of flats in Sea Point do not stay with their families either.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity of finishing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gesture of the hon. member for Hillbrow very much, because that hon. member and the hon. member for Yeoville were the very first persons who came to the hon. the Minister of Justice and said: “Go and help us and clean up.”

I now want to return to the hero of the Crossroads. I want to assure the hon. member for Rondebosch that I have made a study of the squatter problem, and that nowhere else in the world do we find such an involvement with squatters as in the Peninsula. There are 50 000 Mexican squatters in South California. That problem receives some attention, but there is never such an involvement as is the case here. [Interjections.] In the brief time at my disposal, I shall furnish proofs and then the hon. members can ask questions. This involvement is induced by instruments like the communication media—from which I shall quote a few examples—the academics and the intelligentsia—and I shall quote some of them as well. Then there is also the church involvement—once again, I shall quote—and finally the humanist involvement. When I consider all these things together, I can only come to one conclusion, namely that there is a deliberate and well-thought-out effort afoot to bring the Government into discredit by extra-parliamentary means. I say in all sincerity that they are engaged, in an extra-parliamentary way, in bringing about a conflict situation. [Interjections.] When the State does act, they ensure that the well-prepared outside world will once again express a further condemnation of South Africa’s ethnic policy.

You people condemn yourselves.

Now I come to the realities of what I have said, and I shall first deal with the communication media. If we look at the question of squatting right from the start, we find the following slogans in several newspapers: “Wheels of Officialdom,” “Oppression,” “Public awareness,” “Shadow of bulldozers,” “Callous inhumanity,” and “Shadow looms again,” “Rootless existence,” and “Unibell died today.” Here is a nice one, and it reads: “When ideology is at work, humanity takes a back seat.”

Then we come to the second instrument, and that is the academics. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Rondebosch is held in high regard by the University of Cape Town. That university—and I wish the principal and his council would listen—has two departments where organizations do research. One is the “Urban Problems Research Unit” and the other is the “South African Labour and Development Research Unit”. These two branches of the university—our taxpayers pay for the privilege which the students have of studying at the university—have made surveys in this connection. The first branch made a survey among 20 families. The other visited 288 families, which represents approximately 8% of the people. Certain questions were put to the people, and on the basis of particulars obtained in this way, a picture was painted. What does that picture say? That picture says that it is one of the happiest places in existence, and the hon. member agrees with that. He has said so here. That picture also says there is no evil in that community, and the hon. member has also put it that way. The picture further suggests that trading takes place there on a large scale, and the hon. member has also said so. The picture also tells of the happy children there.

Have you ever been there?

The hon. member need not worry about that. I have been there and I made a thorough inspection of the area.

Do you agree with that? [Interjections.]

It was supposed to be a scientific survey, and it was established, amongst other things, that a certain percentage of the 280 families visited had already been living there for 16 years. The people who did the survey also say that they did not ask for reference books, because if they had done that they would have lost the confidence of the people. The question now arises: Is it a scientific survey if one goes to someone and tells him that he is not unlawfully in an area, because he has already been there for 15 years, and that it does not matter? On what basis does one now establish who is in such an area lawfully and who is there unlawfully?

One checks where they have worked in the past.

Did anyone of the people who made the survey go to the places where the people had worked in the past to find out whether they were lawfully there?

I have the proof here and I can show them to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I am not going to elaborate on that, because those are the facts. The survey further shows that 73% of the people work in the formal sector and approximately 25% in the informal sector. How many of that 73% are illegally employed? But I shall leave it at that, because I should like to put a few questions to the hon. member. Is this state of affairs fair to the people of Langa and Guguletu, who are lawfully here and who have to pay in full for their rent and services? Is it fair to the homelands that their people should be here unlawfully and spend their money here unlawfully, thereby robbing the homelands of money which they put to good use there?

What capital is there in the homelands?

Is it not an injustice to the Bantu Administration Board that these people are unlawfully employed, in view of the fact that the Administration Board obtains its revenue from levies? As the people are therefore illegally employed, the Administration Board can obtain no revenue from levies from them. Have trading licences ever been issued? Not a single one has been issued, and I should like to know whether this is fair to the hundreds of traders in Langa and in Guguletu who have to pay rent for their premises, and have to buy their trading licences. These people now enter the market at a lower level and drive out those who are lawfully in the labour market.

I shall handle the matter with care. I am not waging a campaign to remove these people. One thing will happen, however, and this must be clearly understood. These people will have to leave. It will serve no purpose for any church organization, or anyone else, to agitate against the removal of these people. They must agitate leave before the end of the year. We will make use of all possible methods to accomplish that, and we will ultimately succeed, because the present state of affairs is, in my view, not fair to the people who are lawfully there. Nor is it fair to the man who has to pay levies. We shall do what has to be done and the people will be treated humanely in all respects. If I have another half a second left, I wish to refer to another aspect.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

I have not even come yet to the other facet in connection with the breaking down of authority. It is an important factor that the Bantu Affairs Administration Board in the Cape Peninsula is to be disparaged in every way in order that authority may be more easily undermined. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to enter into conversation with the hon. member for Houghton today. However, I first want to set something straight which I failed to do yesterday. I was so perplexed by the hon. member for Houghton’s public declaration of her love for me in this House that I forgot to say quite a number of things. I should like to tell the hon. member that I feel very flattered that she picked me from among all the other men to declare her love to. [Interjections.] It is probably the first time in the history of the world that a lady in Parliament declares her affinities, etc., for a man. [Interjections.] I shall send the flowers at some stage.

Firstly, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Plural Relations and Development. We know it is an extremely difficult portfolio and we wish him strength on the road ahead. Permit me, too, Sir, to convey my wholehearted congratulations to the new hon. Deputy Minister of Plural Relations, the hon. Dr. Willie Vosloo, on his appointment and to wish him, too, strength for the road ahead. On this occasion I also want to pay tribute to the zealous and hard work done by the previous Minister, the hon. M. C. Botha in the many years in which he served in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I want to thank him for a lifetime of work which he devoted to that department and wish him a peaceful retirement with his wife and family.

Regarding the declaration of love by the hon. member for Houghton, I want to say that if it had been made 20 or 15 years ago, I would have regarded it in quite a different light. At this stage, however, I see it in the light of a motherly love. [Interjections.] Today I should like to enter into conversation with the hon. member for Houghton on a very serious matter. She must not hold it against me that I raise this matter, because it is near to my heart and I see it in a serious light. I want to know from the hon. member today whether she is in possession of a private, secret fund which she uses to finance prisoners, underminers and other kinds of people. I want to know whether she makes secret funds available to people who take part in subversive activities in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member permitted to insinuate that an hon. member is providing funds to contribute to agitators? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member asked a question.

*I wish to tell the hon. member for Lydenburg, however, that he may not insinuate that.

Mr. Chairman, I am not insinuating that; I asked the hon. member for Houghton a question. I am amazed that a senior advocate …

Are you a liar?

… does not know the difference between an insinuation and a question. That brings me to the conclusion that there is too much bone between his ears. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she has a secret, private fund which she makes available to people who are undermining the country. I want an answer to that question.

Are you a liar?

You are a liar.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs aver that I am a liar in this House?

Let Helen answer the question, man.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that the hon. member was a liar?

I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

Order! The hon. member for Lydenburg may continue.

For the sake of the record I want an answer from the hon. member for Houghton today. I want to know whether she has a secret fund and whether she uses that fund to help subverters. That is what I want to know.

Mr. Chairman, that is not a clear question. [Interjections.]

I shall put the question much more simply.

Order! The hon. member may not make insinuations.

Mr. Chairman, I assure you that I am not insinuating anything. I am merely asking the hon. member for Houghton a question. I shall simplify it. I ask her whether she has secret funds at her disposal.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: If an hon. member of the Opposition had to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he was aiding the enemies of South Africa, would that not be … [Interjections.]

Sir, my submission is that these points of order which are being raised by the PFP, by the hon. member for Sandton, are deliberately raised to waste my time.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I am asking the hon. member for Houghton in a simple manner whether she has a secret fund at her disposal—yes or no.

There is nothing secret about it. I shall give you the full answer when I speak in this debate. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether the hon. member for Houghton makes that fund, which is apparently not a secret one, available to people who are guilty of subversive activities in South Africa.

The answer to that is “no”.

The hon. member has now answered my question. Mr. Chairman, through you I thank the hon. member for Houghton for assuring us categorically that she does not place that fund at the disposal of people who have been guilty of subversion in South Africa.

I shall answer you when I can.

Is that correct? I had a very interesting experience. I have a very good friend in London.

I say!

He felt so serious about the matter that he phoned me about it. Then he sent me a letter by airmail. He has read Mr. Donald Woods’ book.

So have I.

He told me that Mr. Woods wrote in his book that Mrs. Helen Suzman had sent him, Woods, money when he was still in South Africa to hand over to Steve Biko. She sent money to Woods to hand over to Steve Biko. I am asking the hon. member now whether it is true that she sent money to Steve Biko?

It is none of your business.

The hon. member says that it is none of my business. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. member whether Donald Woods is lying or not.

It is all in Die Transvaler.

Donald Woods alleges that the hon. member for Houghton sent him money, that is to say to Woods, and that he had to hand the money over to Steve Biko. What is even more interesting, is that Donald Woods writes that her name should not be made known. She wanted to remain anonymous. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a fair amount of disgust to the despicable insinuations of the hon. member for Lydenburg. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member said I made a “despicable insinuation”. I request your ruling on this matter.

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: When the hon. member says that the hon. member for Lydenburg made a “despicable insinuation”, he is reflecting on the Chair, for the Chair has ruled that this is not so. [Interjections.] The hon. member made that remark and this is a reflection on the Chair. I am asking you to reconsider your ruling.

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to leave that hon. member alone and proceed to deal with a few remarks made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and Development.

He talked about removals of squatters from the Western Cape. He says they are going to go. They are going to go by the end of the year and nothing else will be allowed. I want to ask that hon. Deputy Minister where these people are going to go. I want to link this up with my speech, because I want to talk specifically about consolidation. The hon. member for Musgrave asked the hon. the Minister about the situation regarding land consolidation. He asked him how long he estimated consolidation would take, and the hon. the Minister’s reply, I am afraid, was far from satisfactory. In essence it was that consolidation would take place as fast as funds became available. He assured the House that the word of the White man had been given and that it would be kept. He suggested that as long as tremendous sums of money were being spent on defence it was very difficult to accelerate the present rate of purchases for consolidation purposes. I think we must approach this matter from two angles. Firstly, we should consider the situation with regard to homelands that are already independent. On 3 March this year I put a question to the hon. the Minister requesting details of properties in Transkei and Bophuthatswana which still have to be bought by the S.A. Bantu Trust. The hon. the Minister replied as follows—

1. (a) No survey has been made of the number of properties concerned.
2. (b) and (c). The properties concerned have not been valued yet and an estimated value is therefore not available. Due to the fact that the process of acquisition of land is subject to the availability of funds and various other factors it is not possible to indicate when the purchase of the properties concerned will be finalized.

Part of this answer is in line with what the hon. the Minister said last night. But the first part—to the effect that they did not know what still had to be bought and could not even give an estimated value of what it might cost the department—I find very extraordinary indeed. Add to this answer another answer given to me on the same day to another question I put and in reply to which the hon. the Minister admitted that he was unable to give an estimate of how much it was going to cost us to acquire the non-independent homeland quota land, and that it was unknown how much land had still to be acquired for each individual homeland. All this leaves us with one inescapable conclusion, namely that the Government and this hon. Minister do not know how much the execution of the policy of separate development is going to cost them. More important still, they cannot say whether or not we are ever going to be in that financial position. The hon. the Minister spoke about the defence budget. Of course, it is costing us a lot of money. Are things going to be different? Are we ever going to be in a situation to buy this land? At the rate at which we are going at the moment, with approximately R30 million set aside this year for purchases, it will take us in the region of 50 years before purchases can be completed. In other words, all those little maps we see giving the extent of the homelands, maps which we distribute right round the world, are in fact maps that will only become true in about 50 years’ time. Then only if we find the money to bring them about. Putting it bluntly, these maps are untruthful because there are hundreds of thousands of hectares of land, of quota land, which still have to be bought in order to make them available for occupation by Black people.

I would suggest that, in actual fact, these maps and the policy which is being executed at a snail’s pace—and it is at a snail’s pace when one is talking about possibly 30 to 50 years—are nothing short of a confidence trick because they will never be brought to finality and we will never have the money to pay for it. I believe that that hon. Minister and the Government know that they will never have that kind of money. They will never have the money to buy out that quota land.

Let us look at this non-execution of the necessary buying programme and some of the effects that it has. Quite cynically, the Government, in the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and Development, continues its policy of moving Blacks out of the Western Cape, a policy very aptly described by the hon. members for Pinelands and Rondebosch. However, many of them go to the Ciskei, and it is particularly about the Eastern Cape and the Ciskei that I want to talk.

This Government bulldozes squatter camps on the Cape Flats and people are moved off willy-nilly to the Ciskei, among other places, where they have no means of subsistence and no land on which they can be adequately resettled. I believe it is a dishonest policy to move people into the Ciskei before one has even purchased the land which they have been promised. That means that they have no place to go. There are thousands of squatters in the Ciskei at the moment. There are thousands of people there who have no place to go, who cannot establish themselves anywhere because the land is just not there. The Ciskei has tremendous unemployment and its resources are quite inadequate to support its population.

An economist at Rhodes University, a certain Mr. Philip Black, has described the Ciskei as a land of extreme poverty. He claims that no less than 91% of all households receive an income which is less than the poverty datum line. Even at Mdantsane, the Ciskei’s largest town, and the home of most of East London’s Black labour, unemployment is estimated at 23%. One must also realize that it is not only within the Ciskei that tremendous problems exist. It is in the so-called White areas round about, where some of the worst imaginable living conditions for Blacks exist. Townships near so many towns and cities, like Grahamstown, Cathcart, Stutterheim, Jamestown, Riebeeck East, Bathurst, and a host of others, all contain living conditions and unemployment situations which are a disgrace to any civilized country.

We do nothing about this, largely on the excuse that most of these townships and settlements are not permanent and that, at some vaguely defined time in the future, these people will be moved elsewhere.

There are many other examples. However, I want to take the example of Grahamstown and the suggested Black dormitory town of Glenmore. As the hon. the Minister knows, the establishment of Glenmore as a dormitory for labour in Grahamstown has been strongly resisted by the Chief Minister of the Ciskei, Mr. Lennox Sebe. As a project of its own, as a centre for, perhaps, intensive agricultural development in that area it can be considered, but it must not be seen as an answer for the Black people who are at present living and working in Grahamstown. During this session, as the hon. the Minister also knows, I have asked a number of questions on Glenmore and have established that a certain amount of money is being made available for the development of townships this year. I have also established that no transport service is being planned between Grahamstown and Glenmore, no water supply has yet been laid on, no industrial development has been planned, and the planning of schools is in a very early stage. I have also discovered that agricultural development is possibly on the cards. The hon. the Minister knows that Glenmore is not even in the Ciskei. I should therefore like to know whether it is his intention to alter the homeland boundary at some stage or another to include Glenmore. I should also like to know whether agricultural land as well would be included if Glenmore should become the centre. We should also bear in mind that the Prime Minister of Ciskei has laid down certain conditions before he and his Cabinet would accept it that Glenmore could be a viable proposition. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us an answer as to whether he accepts those conditions. They concern water, for instance. He wants water from the Orange River scheme. The Fish River water is brackish and not suitable for agricultural development and not even for domestic use. He wants a decent road from Grahamstown. In fact, he has even talked about the possibility of a railway. He also insists that it should be a model township. He does not want another Thornhill or another Dimbaza. In fact, he has said he does not even want another Mdantsane or a Zwelitsha. He wants a model township. It is only on that basis that he would go along with it. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to meet those conditions. He should drop this idea of Glenmore being a dormitory town for Grahamstown, because I do not believe it is on the cards at all. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should appreciate it if, when I, put questions to the hon. member for Houghton, through you, if the hon. member for Groote Schuur will keep quiet and not waste our time. I should like to know from the hon. member for Houghton whether she donated funds for Steve Biko.

What does it have to do with you, anyway? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you to ask the hon. Chief Whip on the other side to give the speaker a chance. The hon. member for Lydenburg was deprived of a great deal of time during his previous speech.

Order! The hon. member for Lydenburg may continue.

I have a pamphlet of which I heard Steve Biko was one of the distributors.

First tell us where you borrowed it from. [Interjections.]

The pamphlet which was also distributed by Steve Biko, reads, inter alia, as follows—

Furthermore he tells the Black people—

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether that pamphlet was ever proved to have been spread by Steve Biko and was he ever charged for having committed an offence?

The hon. the Minister of Justice said that the pamphlet was distributed by Steve Biko, among others. [Interjections.]

That is untrue.

I should like to know from the hon. member what her view of the matter is. What is her standpoint? Does she support the kind of action of which Steve Biko was guilty?

Did she not donate money?

You cannot say that. You are talking nonsense.

If she gives money to someone like Steve Biko who advocates revolution in this country—after all, he did advocate revolution in this country; no one will deny that he advocated revolution …

How can you say something like that?

I shall prove that he advocated revolution. However, I am asking the hon. member for Houghton: Why do you identify yourself with people who advocate revolution in this country? Why do you give money to and support people who want to overthrow this country by means of a violent revolution? [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. member for Houghton where she is going. I ask her Do you support Black power in South Africa?

Do you support Black nationalism in South Africa?

I do not want a counter-question; I want an answer. I want to know whether the hon. member associates herself with and supports the Black power movement in South Africa. I want to know whether that hon. member associates herself with and supports the Black Power Movement in South Africa … [Interjections.] It appears to be so. I think that is a reasonable assumption to make.

*I want to put a further question to the hon. member for Houghton. To what other enemies of South Africa has she given money?

Why don’t you answer our question as to why you did not take him to court? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is that not a blatant insinuation? If the hon. member would resume his seat, I should like to raise this as a point of order. Mr. S. F. KOTZé: You are just wasting his time.

He is entitled to raise a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said he would like to know whether there were any other instances … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, with respect, I want your ruling on whether that is a clear insinuation or not.

Order! I say again the hon. member must not make insinuations.

Mr. Chairman, I assure you that I am only asking questions. I am not insinuating anything.

Take your hiding!

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask …

Are you a liar?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order May that hon. member call the hon. member for Lydenburg a liar?

I asked him whether he was a liar.

You said he was lying. You said he was a liar.

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I did not call him a liar … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove asked the hon. member whether he was a liar.

Order! The hon. member may not circumvent my ruling. He must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, may I address you on this?

You may.

If another hon. member is allowed to ask a similar sort of question … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Lydenburg is asking questions about the actions of another hon. member, and he is entitled to do so.

Well, Sir, all I did was to ask a question about whether …

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, on the basis of what that hon. member has insinuated and the untruths he has told, I shall withdraw the word “liar” and substitute the question: Does he tell untruths?

Order! The hon. member must make an unqualified withdrawal. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I find myself unable to do so. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member finds himself unable to do so, he will have to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting. That is my ruling.

The hon. member thereupon withdrew.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Lydenburg is not asking questions about another hon. member’s actions. He is asking questions about allegations of acts of another hon. member. That is what he is doing, and in everyone of those questions there is a clear insinuation that those actions took place.

Order! After that hon. member has finished his speech, the hon. member will be entitled to stand up and refute all those accusations.

May I call him a liar?

No.

Even if he is telling lies?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask you a question?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I only withdraw it because I want to reply to that miserable creature! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I read somewhere that love can change to hate. Then it is a very serious matter.

I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she has also donated money to other underminers of good order and authority in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, is that not an inference?

I am asking a fair question, Sir.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the inconsistencies of this.

Order! I have already given my ruling on the same question. The hon. member may continue.

It is inconsistent.

Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised at the confusion of the hon. member for Sandton. I have always suspected that he has difficulty in grasping things, and today he has confirmed my suspicion. I want to know whether the hon. member for Houghton, by giving money to people who occupy themselves by instigating revolution in South Africa and by undermining order and authority in South Africa … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to start off by withdrawing every kind remark I made about that hon. member yesterday. I withdraw those remarks unreservedly and completely.

Just answer the questions.

Secondly, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he makes his living by stealing sheep. It is a fair question. I heard that from someone and I should like to know the truth.

No, I do not.

He says he does not. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Houghton a chance.

I do not steal sheep. I notice the number of sheep on the other side of the House.

Order!

That is a silly remark. Sir, the hon. member has asked me a lot of questions which I think are clear insinuations, and the hon. the Minister of Defence is, of course, enjoying it enormously. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had not read the “letter” which he says he received from a friend in London, he would nevertheless know the whole story if he reads Die Transvaler, Oggendblad and Hoofstad, which I have no doubt he reads. Therefore he does not need me to tell him about it. He knows that a story was published in Die Transvaler, Oggendblad and Hoofstad which contained an incorrect statement about a paragraph that appeared in Donald Woods’ book in which he said nothing about secret funds or about my giving money to a subversive organization, as Die Transvaler, Oggendblad and Hoofstad put it. He said in fact—and it was perfectly true—that some years ago I had sent him some money to give to Mr. Biko to help him pay for his legal expenses.

How much?

Mind your own business! [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

Order! Is that another declaration of love?

Yes, Sir. For the information of the hon. members I have a private fund in which I put money and which I keep secret…

Ah!

… or not secret: I keep it to one side for needy cases. Sir, if any of the hon. members opposite were deserving cases, which they are not, I would be only too glad to help them too when they are in need. That is all I intend to say about this, except to add that Die Transvaler published a front page retraction and apology and that Hoofstad and Oggendblad have also published retractions and apologies. If the hon. member for Lydenburg has any decency, he will stand up and retract and apologize to me as well.

I have nothing further to say about that, but I have a great deal to say about other things. Mr. Chairman, I want to say first of all that I am very glad indeed …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of explanation …

Order! Will the hon. member allow an explanation?

No!

Sir, on a point of personal explanation on …

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

Let him sit down and shut up! Sir, I am very glad indeed that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accepted the challenge of the hon. the Minister and dealt with all the loaded questions that were put to him. The hon. the leader dealt with these questions in a most convincing way …

What? Ridiculous!

… and, I might say, not for the first time in the House. It would be a very good thing if hon. members knew something about procedures in Parliament. A lot of them have been here long enough to have learnt them. That includes the hon. the Minister. He knows perfectly well that the objective of committee of supply in a budget is redress of grievance before supply is voted. If hon. members do not know what that means, let me explain to them in words of one syllable. It means that each hon. Minister has to come to this Committee and explain their sins of omission and commission—and they are legion—before this Committee is prepared to vote the money which those Ministers ask this Committee to vote for them. That is all. A Committee of Supply is not for the Opposition to put its policy. That Committee is not even for the junior Opposition to enable it to play with balls and waste the time of this Committee. That is all I have to say on that subject. [Interjections.] However, I want to add one thing and that is that implicit … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, may I have some silence for a change?

Order!

Implicit in every speech which we have made from these benches, i.e. the speech of the hon. members for Rondebosch, Musgrave, Pinelands, Sandton, even the speech that was made by myself and also the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow, outlined the policy of this party. [Interjections.] Of course that is so. Stable labour and family life, the whole attitude towards the Western Cape, the consolidation of the homelands, Soweto and freehold title, are all things which are implicit in the policy of this party.

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell that hon. member … On the other hand, I do not think I need bother with him. However, I want to tell the Committee that the hon. member for Lydenburg quotes figures in this House which are three years out of date. He quotes earnings of families in Soweto of 1975, and that was before the troubles in Soweto. It was also before the recession set in in this country, it was before unemployment and it was before galloping inflation. Therefore those figures are absolutely worthless like most of the things that the hon. member for Lydenburg says in this House.

I can tell the hon. member for Innesdal that he completely ignores the fact that it is the policy of this Government which restricts the earning power of Black people, and that is why it is incumbent upon White people to assist Blacks in housing and other matters such as transport. They are restricted in their earning power, they are given inferior education and training …

That is a lie.

… they have no mobility, trade unions … What did that hon. member say?

I said it was a lie.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says it is a lie. May I, on a point of order …

Which hon. member said it?

The hon. member for Innesdal.

Order! Did the hon. member for Innesdal say it is a lie?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

Furthermore, trade union restrictions prevent Black people from doing skilled jobs. That is the reason why one has to assist them.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister in the three minutes that I have left after the hon. member wasted all my time. What is the hon. Minister going to do about the pass laws in this country? There is a whole lot of talk about new documents …

We do not have pass laws in this country.

No, we do not have pass laws; we only have reference books which restrict mobility. The result of those reference books and the non-production on demand of those reference books, is that ¼ million people were arrested last year. Those are official figures from the hon. the Minister of Police. What is the hon. the Minister going to do about curfew? There were 36 700 arrests last year as a result of the mediaeval laws of curfew. These are the two questions I want to ask the hon. the Minister. Mr. Chairman, do not let him come to me now and tell me that the homelands are going to issue identification books, travel documents and pass books, because if those documents still restrict mobility and if they are still produceable on demand and result in thousands of arrests, they are not going to remove one of the great causes of racial friction in this country. The hon. the Minister ought to know that.

Will the hon. the Minister clarify for me once and for all whether I understood him correctly yesterday when he said that the 99-year leases could be inherited but that if the children who inherited them did not have the section 10 rights of their parents and had, in other words, become foreigners because they were born after the independence of the homelands to which their parents now technically belonged, those children could not live in those houses? They could, he said, inherit them, but they would have to sell them.

Unless they qualify under normal circumstances.

Well, they will not qualify because they are born after independence.

They may qualify.

If they are born after independence?

They may still qualify.

They may? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell me how they may “qualify still” if they are born after independence. This is a very important issue among the Black people. Finally, I want to compliment the hon. the Prime Minister for playing it very cool with regard to the whole issue of the Transkei and the fact that they broke off diplomatic relations with this country. I think he was intelligent to play it cool and not to threaten with the withdrawal of grants-in-aid, etc. That was correct. Does the hon. the Minister have a word of reassurance for the approximately 1½ million people of Transkeian origin who live in South Africa and who have lost their South African citizenship without their being consulted in any way? These people are noe in limbo, because the country to which they are now attached as far as citizenship is concerned, has broken off diplomatic relations with South Africa. All these are issues about which the people want a reassurance.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a fantastic spectacle here today which was started by the hon. member for Lydenburg. The contrast was: The hon. member for Houghton rose and asked the hon. member whether he had stolen a sheep. The hon. member for Lydenburg, in turn, asked the hon. member for Houghton whether she had donated money. The hon. member for Lydenburg then said he had not stolen; indeed, he had not stolen. That party is so nervous that one hon. member had to leave the House and the others who remained, could not answer the question whether the hon. member had given money or not.

I gave you the answer.

Ultimately, the hon. member had to get a turn to speak to say that she had indeed given money. I venture to state that that hon. member is absolutely sure that she was engaged in something which was wrong. The hon. member said she had given where necessary. Not so long ago, a terrorist was walking in Port Elizabeth and a bomb he was carrying in his hand, exploded and he passed into eternity.

A few days later, another terrorist set a bomb in Port Elizabeth and a Black woman passed into eternity and another was seriously injured. In view of this, I want to know from the hon. member whether she is going to make available the money which she gives when she deems it is necessary, to expose that murderer and have him caught? Is the hon. member going to make any of that money available to assist the next of kin of the victims? Is she going to make the money available to the family of the injured persons and of the deceased to institute a civil action?

The State provides legal aid …

These people have suffered damages.

I consider each case on its merits.

The hon. member cannot allege that. It is not the duty of the State to institute a civil action where people have died and where others have suffered damages. These people have themselves the right to institute a civil action against the murderer if he is caught. I want to know whether the hon. member for Houghton is going to assist the people who are left and who have suffered damages?

But you provide that.

There is real distress. [Interjections.] The hon. member says she is not going to give …

I did not say “no”. [Interjections.]

The point I wish to make, is that the hon. member has admitted that she has given money to others. By that, the hon. member has demonstrated that her sentiments and her support lie with militant Marxist enemies of South Africa and not with South Africa itself.

Biko has never been found guilty of any crime.

The hon. member can say what she likes; she has today given that demonstration.

You are not worth a cent of the taxpayer’s money by way of a salary.

I did not ask for that hon. member’s opinion.

I should like to reply to a few aspects which hon. members have raised. The hon. member for Potgietersrus wanted to know what are the priorities according to which land is purchased. The first priority is that we purchase land as compensating land for poorly situated Black areas which have to be cleared up. That is also the reply to the hon. member’s second question. We do it in that way because, if we first purchase land as compensation, the poorly situated area becomes available and the land can be sold, and the money utilized for further purchases of land. For that reason, we first buy the land for compensation, while the quota land is purchased later.

The hon. member who has had to leave the House, maintains that because we cannot state exactly what the valuations are of the land we must still purchase, we do not know how long it is going to take and when we are going to dispose of this. We do make estimates, but we have not made a survey of how many farms and properties there really are. The properties may still undergo a change of ownership, and for that reason such a survey is not necessary. But we do make our own estimates of the area of agricultural land which still has to be purchased, and of the municipal valuations. Such estimates are, however, not absolutely reliable, and for that reason we are not prepared to disclose these details. Any person can make his own surveys. The estimates which we have made, are for our own departmental purposes. If we made a slight mistake with these estimates, the hon. members would kick up a fuss in this House for weeks and years to come and say that we do not know precisely what we are doing.

Last night the hon. the Minister replied to most of the questions in connection with the matter of consolidation. The 1936 Act is the basis according to which the land is purchased. The second point is that when the purchases of the land approved by Parliament in 1965, have been finalized, the promises of the 1936 legislation and its requirements will have been met. The hon. member for Musgrave said yesterday that that 1936 legislation could not be the basis of land purchases, because certain areas were now going to become independent and we should therefore find another basis.

The hon. member should look at history. He would find that the Act of 1936 was the culmination of a process which started in 1913. In 1913, the object was to establish a full home, a full-fledged fatherland, for the different peoples. Gen. Botha himself said that one could not place all the peoples within the same territory and that different territories should be made available to the different ethnic groups. At that time it was already foreseen that the maximum political power should be given to these people. I am not going to read all those speeches, but I just want to quote what Gen. Hertzog said. He said—

I also want to quote what Colonel Creswell said—

[Interjections.] It was a separate protectorate which held out the possibility of independence, and indeed it became independent later on. Just as Great Britain cherished an ideal for this protectorate which was then still in the far distant future, so the arrangements made in 1913 and in 1936, contained within it a development which had to evolve in time. Gen. Hertzog spoke about “Zoveel mogelik macht en gezag”. That means full authority and total independence. One cannot give more than that. In other words, that development was foreseen even then.

I should like to discuss another aspect briefly. The hon. member has argued that in order to effect greater consolidation, we should allocate areas in terms of the 1936 Act without buying out the owners. I shall probably not have sufficient time to reply fully to his argument, but I want to put the very serious request to him that he should make a study of the matter and ascertain whether what he is suggesting, is truly a realistic and workable solution. We have experience of that on a smaller scale. There is, for example, the 2 million hectares of land which Parliament has earmarked. We know what it means to earmark and we know what demands it makes on the State. I want to tell the hon. member that it means only one thing, and that is that the guarantee which we give to the people, will mean absolutely nothing if it cannot be realized in hard cash. We know from experience that the Black governments want to know when we are going to purchase and hand over the land which we have earmarked. I ask the Opposition whether any Black leader or any Black man has ever told them that we need not buy out the land which Parliament earmarked in 1975, and that we should just leave the matter at that? Not a single one has said that. All the Black nations and Black governments would like to have that land. On the other hand, there is not a single White man who lives there who does not want his land to be purchased.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired, but before he sits down I should just like to put a question to him. Earlier in his argument he said that the support of the hon. member for Houghton lay with the militant subverters. What does the hon. the Deputy Minister mean by that?

I meant that she did not support South Africa, but militant subverters.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw that.

I shall withdraw it. May I substitute the statement that her love and loyalty lie with those people and not with South Africa?

No. The hon. the Deputy Minister may not question the hon. member’s loyalty.

Then I withdraw that and shall content myself with saying that the hon. member reveals herself as someone who throws in her weight against South Africa.

But I do not weigh very much.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

The House adjourned at 18h00.