Mr. Speaker, with your leave I should like to make the following statement to this House.

On receipt of the report of the Select Committee on the Advocate-General Bill, and in consequence of representations from and discussions with representatives of the media and other interested parties, the Government has decided to relinquish for the present the provisions of the Bill which were to have placed restrictions on the publication of certain information. It is accepted that the media will play a responsible role in regard to those matters which are covered by the Bill, due regard being had for the fact that the psychological component of the onslaught on South Africa forms an important part of that onslaught.

As far as the remainder of the Bill is concerned, the Government has decided to proceed with it. This decision confirms the Government’s object with the legislation, viz. to ensure that persons who have any information on maladministration, mismanagement and misappropriation should have an accessible institution to which that information may be referred for investigation. Moreover, it confirms the Government’s standpoint that the legislation was not, or is not, intended to impose censorship on the Press.

The Government expects and invites the media to hold discussions with the Government during the Parliamentary recess with a view to the taking of effective steps to ensure that the truth of reports is established before they are published. I must, however, point out that there is increasing concern on the part of the Government and the public at the role of certain irresponsible media. The Government commits itself to taking steps in this regard if these actions do not stop.

Mr. Speaker, with the retirement from the Cabinet of the hon. S. L. Muller and the hon. W. A. Cruywagen, essential changes in the constitution of the Cabinet have become necessary. I wish on this occasion to place on record my gratitude to these two hon. gentlemen for their long service in our public life. I wish them everything of the best in the course their lives may take in future.

When Senator M. Viljoen’s probable retirement as member of the Senate causes a vacancy to arise in the Senate, the hon. J. T. Kruger will be nominated for that vacancy.

The hon. Dr. W. L. Vosloo has graciously accepted another appointment in the Public Service.

With a view to the rationalization and the co-ordination of the Public Service I envisage reconstituting the Cabinet as follows—

Deputy Ministers:

The new Cabinet members will be sworn in on 20 June, with the exception of Dr. Munnik, who will be sworn in at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, we should like to record our objection to this recommendation because this involves the resettling of something like 10 000 people. [Interjections.]

Order!

We indicated to the Select Committee that we were against these removals and we would also like to record our objections in the House.

Recommendation agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Recommendation (4):

Mr. Chairman, we wish to record our objection to this recommendation. This involves the piece of land stretching south from Cape St. Lucia down to the north of Richards Bay, a sizable portion of the kwaZulu coastline. The exchange is disapproved of by the kwaZulu Government, and we do not believe that it is in the interests of the situation at the present time, or at any time, for this land to be treated in this way and for people to be removed.

Recommendation agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Recommendation (5):

Mr. Chairman, we should like to record our objection to this recommendation. It involves a piece of land known as Sordwana Bay. The proposal is to excise it from the kwaZulu homeland in exchange for another piece of land. Again this exchange is opposed by the kwaZulu Government, and we oppose it because we do not believe that it will be in the interests of the kwaZulu people.

Recommendation agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Remaining recommendations agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Road Transportation Act, No. 74 of 1977, contains certain concessions to farmers which mean that that particular transportation is not deemed to constitute road transportation. Consequently application does not have to be made for a road transportation permit.

I know it is and has always been the normal practice among the farming community to take their farm labourers to town occasionally in their—the farmers’—own vehicles for the purpose of shopping, or to attend church services, funerals and sports meetings. This is, however, contrary to the provisions of Act No. 74 of 1977 because such transportation does constitute road transportation and a road transportation permit is necessary for this purpose. Farmers do, however, have a problem in this regard because public transport is not always readily available for such occasions, and in some cases it does not exist at all.

I think hon. members will agree with me that the farming community could be accommodated by providing in the Act that farm labourers, when they are conveyed with a farmer’s own vehicle between the place where they are being employed in his farming operations and any other place for the purposes of shopping, church attendance, attendance of funerals or any sports or recreational meetings, that conveyance is not considered to be road transportation. I therefore propose that section l(2)(b) of Act No. 74 of 1977 be amended by the insertion of paragraph (iiiA).

†When I moved the Second Reading of the Road Transportation Bill—which has since become the Road Transportation Act, 1977— I said, inter alia, that the human being is fallible and that I did not want to leave the impression that it would never again be necessary to amend the Act I should have added that the human being is also ingenious, and it is because of his ingenuity that I am today compelled to move the amendment of section 1(2)(1).

Hon. members will remember that section 1(2)(1) was written into the Act as a result of a recommendation by the Commission of Inquiry into the Road Transportation Bill. In paragraph 6.4 of its report, the commission felt that a slight concession would solve many of the problems experienced by rural retailers, because as a rule they cannot carry big stocks and have to supplement their stocks frequently. The commission therefore recommended the use of a goods vehicle with a carrying capacity not exceeding one 1 000 kg and belonging to a business concern, in the course of such a concern’s trade to convey its goods anywhere in the country without it being necessary to obtain a permit.

Section 1(2)(1) did, however, not limit the use of the vehicles in question to conveyance of own goods in the course of an industry, trade or business, with the result that the conventional 1-ton pick-up is designed and built in such a manner that it does not resemble a pick-up in the faintest, and those vehicles are then used to run a cartage contracting service for reward without any permit at the cost of established cartage contractors who had to make out a case before a local road transportation board and who had to pay for their permits.

Those hauliers who are abusing the concession in respect of the goods vehicle with a carrying capacity not exceeding 1 000 kg—which, incidentally, includes a trailer— are doing it quite legally by manipulating details such as the carrying capacity of a goods vehicle which can obviously carry more than 1 000 kg, in such a manner that the vehicle is eventually derated to conform to the requirements of section 1(2)(1).

When this matter came to my notice, my first reaction was to delete section 1(2)(1) from Act 74 of 1977.

Realizing, however, that the deletion of section 1(2)(1) will be a retrogressive step in the move towards gradual deregulation in the road transportation sphere, and bearing in mind that more than 400 vehicles have been specially built by hauliers at a capital cost of approximately R3 million to fall within the 1 000 kg carrying capacity range, I instructed the Department of Transport to hold discussions with those interested in order to resolve the matter.

During the discussions it was agreed that, should it be necessary to amend section 1(2)(1), provision should in all fairness be made for a phasing-out period during which those hauliers who are using the derated goods vehicles, can orientate themselves either to cease operations with those vehicles or to apply for the necessary road carrier permits. A phasing-out period which will lapse on 31 December 1981 was considered to be reasonable.

In the light of the present fuel situation, however, I have decided against a phasing-out period, the reason being that any phasing-out period may be influenced by the availability of fuel. In this regard it is to be noted that the conveyance of a 10 000 kg payload by a vehicle with that carrying capacity will consume less fuel than 10 vehicles with a carrying capacity of 1 000 kg over the same distance. I have consequently decided that the National Transport Commission should be empowered to consider, in its discretion, applications for public permits in respect of those vehicles which have been derated to qualify for the concession as provided for in clause 1(b) of the Bill.

In order to ensure uniformity in the exercising of such discretion, applications will have to be submitted directly to the National Transport Commission and not to local road transportation boards.

I may mention in this regard that the proposed amendment of section 1(2)(1) has been discussed with both the Federation of Road Transport Associations and the Transport Consultative Committee. Those hauliers who make use of the concession are members of either or both of these organizations.

Both these bodies, although in favour of it that a certain measure of control be exercised over the use of these vehicles, expressed concern over the fact that the National Transport Commission would be given the discretion either to grant or to refuse authority to those hauliers that have been conveying goods for reward in terms of the section since a date prior to 1 January 1979.

Although I am not in a position to anticipate the decision of the National Transport Commission, I can at least give the assurance that the commission will consider each of these cases on merit whilst all relevant factors will certainly be taken cognizance of. Here I include factors such as the fact that capital investments have been made by certain hauliers as well as the fact that many people have been employed in the course of these operations. Furthermore, I wish to point out that these carriers can, in terms of section l(2)(x), continue with their business without having to obtain permits if such conveyance is undertaken within an area with a radius of 40 km from the carrier’s place of business.

It will be noted from the proposed new paragraph (1A) that the gross vehicle mass as opposed to the carrying capacity in the existing section of the Act is now taken into account to limit goods vehicles to the lighter type, e.g. the well-known ¾-ton and 1-ton pick-ups. The reason for this is that, as I have pointed out earlier, the carrying capacity of a goods vehicle can be manipulated whereas the gross vehicle mass is determined by motor vehicle manufacturers and can therefore not be amended at random. By limiting the gross vehicle mass to 2 500 kg, the object aimed at by the Commission of Inquiry into the Road Transportation Bill is achieved.

This amendment is supported not only by the Federation of Road Transport Associations and the Transport Consultative Committee, but also by the Industrial Advisory Committee, which in fact suggested that section 1(2)(1) be amended to exclude trailers and semi-trailers from the concession and to limit the size of goods vehicles by way of gross vehicle mass instead of carrying capacity.

*As far as the proposed amendments of section 1(2)(w), l(2)(x) and l(2)(y) are concerned, the Minister of Transport may by way of regulation prescribe the manner in which vehicles the goods may be conveyed within the areas mentioned. The opinion is held that it is desirable that the Minister should also be empowered to prescribe by regulation conditions with regard to this transport.

This opinion stems from a measure of doubt which exists about the legal validity of regulation 2(5) of the Road Transportation Regulations, 1977. It is deemed that this regulation prescribes a condition, and not a manner, while section l(2)(x) of Act No. 74 of 1977 only mentions the manner prescribed by regulation.

Regulation 2(5) was made to restrict those carriers who, through the establishment of bogus depots on the borders of released areas, in reality extended the released areas by 40 km.

Should it be decided to make limiting regulations, i.e. the laying down of conditions, in respect of sections l(2)(w) and l(2)(y) of Act No. 74 of 1977, the same problem will arise since the sections concerned also mention only the manner prescribed by regulation.

In view of this it is necessary for sections l(2)(w), l(2)(x) and l(2)(y) of Act No. 74 of 1977 to be amended in such a manner that the Minister may also make conditions by regulation.

The conditions to which I am referring, mean that the Minister will be placed in a position, when the said concessions are being abused—as is in fact the case with the so-called 1-ton pick-up—where he is able to act immediately by amending the regulations where necessary to control the abuse that has been disclosed.

Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I rise to speak with almost a feeling of nostalgia. For the five years I have been in this hon. House and spoken on transport matters, we have had as Minister of Transport the hon. Minister who has just introduced this Bill. In a way it is a very sad moment indeed when one realizes that this is probably the last Bill that he will introduce in this House.

I would like to say a few words in tribute to the hon. the Minister. Although we have been on different sides of the House and have argued over many Bills, the hon. the Minister has always behaved in a most gentlemanly manner towards his opponents. He has been a worthy opponent in every possible way.

Hear, hear!

It is therefore with a great deal of regret that I say goodbye to him. Perhaps it is regrettable that the last Bill which he will introduce, this Bill, should be a Bill which I cannot support in its entirety. But the hon. the Minister will realize that although nostalgia can carry one a certain distance, one should not allow it to carry one so far as to support a Bill with which one disagrees. This Bill does not, however, have our total disagreement at all. It is a Bill containing only one clause with many subdivisions and each of these is loaded with a considerable amount of significance.

When the Road Transportation Commission sat to look into the Road Transportation Act, the whole rationale behind it was to introduce a situation of freer competition in the transport world. That was the spirit behind the Act we passed in 1977 and which came into operation on 1 January 1978. Regrettably circumstances have changed since then. One of the cardinal factors that must influence our thinking on transport matters now is the availability of fuel. We are in a very difficult situation indeed. We all understand this. Certainly, as a result of that, many of our previous ideas about the utilization of transport systems must be amended. One also has to guard very much against a situation in which the shortage of fuel is used as an excuse to bring business to the Railways. At no time have we accepted any arguments that on all occasions the Railways are necessarily more efficient than private enterprise.

In the past, as the hon. the Minister will probably remember, the figures that have been produced by the Railways, figures demonstrating that every litre of diesel fuel that they use is used far more efficiently than it can be used by private hauliers, have been treated with considerable suspicion by this side of the House. Since the time we have had discussions in the House, I have had occasion to talk to some of the road transport organizations. They agree with me that these figures should be treated with suspicion. They are actually very keen to obtain those figures so that they can put their economists to work to have a look at them to see whether they have any substance. Right from the outset we have accepted that there are certainly instances in which the S.A. Railways do use diesel fuel far more effectively than road transport organizations, including Railway-operated road transportation services as well.

We do not believe that on all occasions the Railways use fuel more efficiently than private enterprise. It is regrettable to us that at this stage at which we experience a petrol shortage, no national transport plan has been produced to rationalize all transport operations in South Africa, including private enterprise as well as State-operated road transportation services.

We do not have any quarrel at all with the first provision of the Bill. The whole Bill is aimed at amending the definitions in section 1 of the Road Transportation Act, specifically the definitions which fall outside the definition of road transportation as such. The first provision, viz. the proposed new section l(2)(iiiA), merely deals with farmers who wish to transport their workers to church, shops and sports functions and the like and as it is a very sensible provision indeed we have no objection to it.

However, the proposed section 1(2)(1) is the meat of the Bill. After paragraph (1) a new paragraph, viz. paragraph (1A), is inserted. The effect of this is to make it illegal for fast inter-city express lines to operate, except those already operating on 1 January 1979. As the hon. the Minister has said, even this is discretionary. He said that he could not anticipate the findings of the National Transport Commission in this respect However, it means that anybody who was operating this sort of fast inter-city road transportation service on 1 January 1979, will in all likelihood be granted a permit to continue to do this. My question to the hon. the Minister is: What about people who may have invested in this since 1 January 1979? We are now in the month of June. I am not aware of how many people have invested in vehicles of this nature since that time, but I am absolutely certain that there might be a considerable number of people who have, not necessarily as far as the inter-city transport services are concerned, but certainly services operated within the 40 km or 80 km radius.

They are not affected.

They are. In the proposed paragraph (1A) we change the definition of a vehicle from one with a 1 000 kg carrying capacity to a vehicle with a mass not exceeding 2 500 kg. This in itself I think is sensible. Nobody, at the time the new Act was discussed, envisaged that the derating that has since been going on in the industry would take place. Nobody envisaged that vehicles with a rating as high as 7 tons would be derated to the extent that they became 1 000 kg vehicles. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that there is an optimum in this and that if one is considering the pick-up only, one is considering a vehicle which is very extravagant as far as the use of fuel is concerned. It might therefore be better to try to phrase the clause so that the definition includes vehicles which are operating on an inter-city transport service. They had to have larger fuel tanks and their overall weight is greater. In fact, I would suggest that the optimum is probably a vehicle that is derated from about 2½ to 3 tons to a 1-ton vehicle. I believe that by phrasing the clause in that manner we might come up with a better answer than allowing the normal ¾-ton or ½-ton pick-up only.

We are distressed by the retrospectivity of this amendment. We believe that the hon. the Minister should change his mind and allow an amendment which we intend moving at the Committee Stage. This amendment will allow anybody who has been operating up to the end of June to continue. It appears from the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister that he envisages a phasing out of all these vehicles. In other words, people who have invested the enormous amounts of money that have been invested in these inter-city transport operations, shall be allowed to continue with the vehicles that are at present operating, although the service will steadily be phased out I am not in total agreement with this either. Certainly as far as fuel is concerned, this type of service could be considered to be extravagant But one must examine the sort of service it provides and also how much fuel is actually used. One must appreciate that this service is operating in competition with the South African Railways parcel service largely and also with South African Airways air freight. It is quite extraordinary how, even though the rates charged by these operators are geared to the rates charged by air freight, thousands of people are using this service rather than the South African Railways and South African Airways.

Why are they doing this? They are doing this because they need to do it. The South African Airways freight services have shortcomings, as have the parcel services of the South African Railways. It is a very popular service. These quasi 1-ton vehicles are running with between 20 and 60 different consignments on board from various customers and are providing a door to door delivery. Regrettably this is something which neither South African Airways air freight nor South African Railways parcel service can match. They are simply not doing it as efficiently. My contention is that the need has been proved, that this sort of service is needed in South Africa at the moment and should prove part of the overall transport plan that I hoped the department would provide in these times of fuel shortages. I may just mention that figures given to me by private enterprise indicate that the total fuel usage is 0,055% of our total South African fuel bill. In other words, this is just over l/20th of 1% of our total fuel bill. In terms of economic necessity one must argue, on that basis, that the amount of fuel used is negligible while the service which is provided is a necessity on the South African scene. We are not only talking of inter-city services, but also of services that operate from Cape Town, for example, to mining areas in the north-western Cape. As a matter of fact, they are operating all over South Africa at the moment, and I believe their popularity has proved their need. Until such time as the S.A. Railways and the S.A. Airways can prove that they are more efficient and that they can do the same job, I believe these people should be allowed to continue.

I think one must also take it into consideration that the service provided by these people is a door-to-door service. For example, if I want to send something urgently from here to Durban, I have to use a vehicle to take my goods to the station so that it can be transported by the parcel service. The recipient most probably has to send his vehicle to collect the goods at the other end. This also uses fuel, and I therefore feel that if one assesses the usage of fuel by the Railways themselves, one must also take into consideration that fuel is used in delivery at both ends. One-ton vehicles are certainly not economical in terms of fuel usage. One must accept, however, that if one gave road transportation services the opportunity to enlarge those vehicles to any great degree so that they can take as many consignments as a railway carriage, they too will become inefficient as they will not be able to provide the personalized services that is at present being provided by them, and the need therefore would actually fall away. When I am referring to this express goods service, I am particularly referring to the use of smaller vehicles. I admit again that the vehicles used at present are extravagant as far as the usage of fuel is concerned.

I have no quarrel with the provisions that do away with derated vehicles, because I think it closes an opening that had been left in the Act. As the hon. the Minister said, human ingenuity can find ways through many mazes to their own advantage. Human ingenuity has done so in this instance, and once the way was shown by the bigger operators, smaller people have gone into the business, some of them since January 1979. I believe that they deserve consideration as well. I would go so far as to say that the biggest operator that I know of in this field was somebody who gave evidence before the commission that was considering the Road Transportation Act, and I want to suggest that at the time he was possibly well aware of the loophole that existed in the Act. I do not believe that that gentleman should get preferential treatment over individuals who might have followed his example, realizing that it was within the law for them to do so. I do not think that their situation should be prejudiced while his situation acts to his advantage in that he is to be allowed to continue. I realize that his investment is perhaps greater than anybody else, but to the small man a small investment is also very important indeed. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he would consider an amendment allowing people who have started operating vehicles in this fashion up to 30 June or 30 May, to continue. By 30 May it was obvious that legislation was going to be introduced in this respect.

Our attitude towards this legislation is going to depend on the hon. the Minister’s attitude. If he is prepared to accept an amendment which does away with the retrospective aspects of the clause, we shall vote with him for the Bill, but if he refuses to do that, we would have to vote against the Bill.

We also have certain reservations about clause 1(d), (e) and (f), because they introduce the words “and on the conditions” in paragraphs (w), (x) and (y) to section 1(2) of the principal Act. These provisions deal with respectively the exempted areas, the 40 km limit for carriers and the building industry and trade limit of 80 km. The hon. the Minister has told us what he has in mind, but we believe that this wording opens too wide a field of interpretation, and that is undesirable. We are therefore not particularly happy about it. We believe that in terms of the regulations it puts so much power into the hands of the National Transportation Board that it is in fact undesirable. The implications of this could be enormous.

In conclusion I want to come back to our attitude towards the question of the Railways at this stage taking away more business from private enterprise, especially the Railways’ road transportation services. It is our contention that Railway road transportation services do not, and are unlikely to, use fuel as efficiently as private enterprise. There is an argument as far as major loads conveyed by rail are concerned, but when it comes to road transportation services, they should be on absolute equal footing with private enterprise. Private enterprise is frequently much more competitive. I would say that the spirit of competition induced by the private enterprise system is such that one is likely to get more efficiency than would be the case from a State-owned corporation. Competition has this effect.

That is why we in this party are in favour of the private enterprise system. If one is going to use a litre of fuel effectively and efficiently, we believe that competition will ensure that that is done. One does not waste fuel in the private enterprise. The profit motive ensures that fuel is not poured down the drain. There is less compulsion when it comes to fuel wastage than is the case when one is dealing with a State corporation like the S.A. Railways. Because the Administration itself and the hon. the Minister have in recent years done a tremendous amount towards more efficiency in the S.A. Railways —including the S.A. road transportation services—I believe that this possibly brings them to parity with the private enterprise. However, one should not go further than that.

I want to come back to the point that I made earlier on. I believe that there is a vital necessity for the department now, in these days of fuel shortage, to introduce a national transport plan which will rationalize the position and the situation of State-controlled corporations viz-à-vis private enterprise. Each has its part to play and will have its part to play in the future, and I believe that it is vitally important that this is co-ordinated to a far greater degree than it is at the present time. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that, while still with us, he suggests to his department—as perhaps his swan song—that a national transport plan of this nature is clearly called for because of the fuel shortage. I believe that he would do the country another service if he would put this forward before he retires from a long and very honourable career on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who was to have handled the passage of this Bill on behalf of the NRP, is unfortunately not able to be here today. I am sure that he would like me to convey to the hon. the Minister—as in fact I do myself—our congratulations for the way in which he has conducted the affairs that have fallen under his responsibility over a considerable period. I have been in this House only for a very short period of time, but I have found the hon. the Minister always unfailingly courteous in all his dealings with us. Whenever I have put a case to him, he has given me a sympathetic hearing. Although I have not always been given the decision that I would have liked, he has unfailingly put it to me in a very reasonable manner. I am of course referring to the closing of the offices of the Road Transportation Board in East London.

We are a free-enterprise party and we have to look at the provisions of this Bill in that light. This Bill is a mixed bag, relating as it does to various aspects. It is a bit like the curate’s egg; good in parts and bad in parts. However, we shall not vote against it at Second Reading for the very reason that there are parts of it that are good. There are principles in it which we are very keen to see carried out. Notedly in this regard is clause 1(a), which allows a farmer to transport his labourers. We believe this is an extremely good provision. We do not want to be seen in any shape or form to vote against the principle of a farmer being allowed to do this. We look at this Bill as more of a Committee Stage Bill for setting out our objections.

However, I think we must put our party’s viewpoint in connection with road transportation and the sort of penalties and restrictions that are placed on it in South Africa. These of course are virtually entirely due to the protection of the State transport organization. We in these benches believe that there can be a case made out for road transportation in certain instances. However, we feel that the overall good that can be achieved by this legislation should be modified considerably. We feel in fact that the Road Transportation Act as such should gradually be phased out. We are not suggesting that it should be cut off with a sharp knife here and now. We simply believe that one must try to open transportation more and more to free enterprise. We believe there are provisions within this Act that can be phased out immediately. Others, of course, can take a considerable time longer to be phased out.

When this type of restriction was originally envisaged—not in 1977, but many, many years earlier—South Africa was in a very different situation to the one in which we find ourselves now. Prior to the last World War we were predominantly an agricultural community, and a mining community. Our industries had not developed to any great extent. Our population was considerably smaller. Our gross capital development was far smaller than it is today. However, since those days, when these types of restrictions were necessary, South Africa has become far more of an industrialized society, and as an industrialized society there is the population and there is the movement of goods within the society to ensure that the transportation of any article should be able to be done efficiently and profitably, without unnecessary protection being granted to the State.

Having made this clear, we must now go on to the actual provision to which we object. That is, of course, the substitution for par. (1) of subsection (2) of section 1 of the Road Transportation Act, 1977. We share the objection which the hon. member for Orange Grove has with regard to the retrospective situation in regard to vehicles which have been brought into use since 1 January 1979. We agree with him, and if he moves an amendment to that effect during the Committee Stage, we will support it. We believe that this legislation should not be retrospective. People might have invested large sums of money since 1 January 1979. They might have gone into a business and this might mean the end of such a particular person’s career. He might have invested everything he possesses to buy a vehicle in February, and come June or July of this year, he suddenly finds that he is operating with an illegal vehicle. He cannot get a permit and he is put out of business. He could even go insolvent.

I believe this is a very unattractive measure in this Bill. Like the hon. member for Orange Grove, I also look forward to hearing the hon. the Minister’s reaction in this regard.

There is no question that the petrol price situation or the fuel shortage is a factor which has to be considered. However, at the same time the service which is being provided is extremely popular. It has fulfilled a need within the commercial and industrial structure of South Africa, to the extent that, as I understand, even where their charges are higher than the charges made by the S.A. Railways or the S.A. Airways, the users of these services nevertheless still continue to use them. We believe that the S.A. Railways and S.A. Airways should be able to compete with these people on their own ground, and that the free competition aspect should be the aspect which controls the usage. If the SAA and the SAR can provide a service that makes those people unnecessary, so that in the open market they do not get the business, I think that would be the best way of closing down that type of operation. I therefore commend that thought to the hon. the Minister’s consideration.

There is another point which should, however, be made. With the increasing price of fuel that type of operator, in view of the amount of goods he can move per litre of petrol or diesel, is subject to an ever-increasing petrol bill, a state of affairs that must inevitably play a large part in his overall cost structure. The hon. the Minister has repeatedly told us how efficient the Railways is, and he produced a series of large test tubes painted red to show us how far the Railways can transport a ton of goods with a litre of fuel. If this is so, it is all the more reason why the Railways should be able to compete efficiently with this type of organization. That is the second point that I suggest the hon. the Minister has a look at.

The third point relates to the creation of a monopoly. In terms of the proposed legislation before us, a monopoly is going to be created for those people who are currently in the business and who are going to get permits. It will not be possible to compete with them. I think that the Road Transportation Act does, to quite a large extent, tend to create monopolies for the transportation of goods. If one is fortunate enough to get a carriers’ licence, one is in business and it is not possible for outsiders to compete with one, of course except for the Railways itself.

I must admit that there is something I am a little confused about—and I should like the hon. the Minister to react to this—and that is the actual problem that the hon. the Minister has. Is his problem that the users are derating trucks of 3-ton capacity, let us say, down to a 1-ton rating, or is his problem that he wants to stop that type of service willy-nilly, regardless of whether the people are using genuine 1-ton vehicles or not? I ask this because what the relevant provision seeks to do is to stop all usage, regardless of whether the people are playing the game or whether they are, in fact, driving a truck through loopholes in the law. There could be—and I, of course, do not know—people who are genuinely complying with the intention of the 1977 Act and are genuinely using 1-ton vehicles to transport goods from point A to point B. There are the other people, of course, who have derated their vehicles and have, as I have said, driven a truck through a loophole in the law. Now, however, one is seeking to catch both in the net thrown out by the hon. the Minister.

As I have said, we shall not oppose this Bill at Second Reading because it is a mixed bag, but we do look forward to hearing what the hon. the Minister has to say, and what he has to say will, of course, decide the way we react in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, since this might be the last time that the hon. the Minister will deal with a Bill in this House, I feel a pressing need to tell him today that it was a great honour for me to be able to work with him on a committee. I think that a person who has not had the privilege of knowing this hon. the Minister, has missed a valuable experience. I have had the privilege of being able to work with him and I have learned from him that one does not look at a person’s weaknesses, but at his strong points. At one stage or another he also saw something good in all of us and afforded us the opportunity of helping him with transport matters. I think all of us will learn in the course of time that there are people who pass close to one, but who leave an indelible impression on one’s life in the process. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he is a person who has left such an impression on me. The hon. the Minister has left me, and I believe other hon. members too, an example worth following with the way in which he always supported us in matters which were difficult for us. I want to thank him for that.

I now come closer to the Department of Transport. The hon. the Minister could make any matter very clear to us in this House and we shall miss him. The S.A. Railways will miss him. The Department of Transport will miss him. What is more, the worker outside will miss him. I thank the hon. the Minister most sincerely for everything he has done for and meant to us.

Since I now want to proceed to deal with the Bill, I want to point out that I often get the feeling that when it comes to road transport, our people are abusing the concessions granted them in terms of the 1977 Act. The understanding was that we wanted to move towards a freer situation in matters concerning road transport. An effort was made to allow larger areas in which it was not necessary to obtain permits for road transport. An effort was made to save time in the completion of applications. Everything possible was done to afford the carrier the opportunity of being able to compete.

But what happened? We were, for example, informed that the one-ton pick-up was absolutely essential for the conveyance of spare parts for heavy vehicles that broke down on the road. I myself have had some experience in this regard, and consequently I can testify that it is true that the pick-up in fact is required for this purpose. For example, there is a heavy vehicle stranded in Pietermaritzburg which cannot be repaired before certain spare parts have been made available. An appeal was then made for permission to use pick-ups in such cases, so that spare parts could be taken in the shortest possible time to the place where the vehicle had broken down. Such pick-ups were also used to take another driver to a heavy vehicle if the original driver became ill.

We knew that if they had wanted to they could get round the concession that had been granted them. Nevertheless, we did not attempt to pilot legislation that would cover all the loopholes through Parliament. When the whole question was discussed at that time, I myself referred to the licensing of trailers. I pointed out that trailers could be flagrantly misused. The parties involved in the matter, pleaded with us not to stipulate that it would be necessary to obtain a permit for a trailer. If a permit were necessary, one would obtain a permit only once it became necessary to move a trailer. We did everything possible to facilitate matters for the people involved in road transportation.

What happened? People rebuilt these pickups completely. They were not prepared to undertake transportation as the Railways does in the case of South West Africa and in other places. They only wanted to undertake the transportation of goods between places such as Durban and Johannesburg. Of course, if they are allowed to do so they are taking the cream off the top in that they are operating high-rated transportation. They are only too keen to undertake high-rated transportation only, but when it comes to the undertaking of low-rated transportation, they are not interested. They are not interested in the transportation and delivery of small packages. They do not want to convey small packages from a place such as Johannesburg to Brits and deliver them there. They do not want to render a service as the Railways does. It is easily referred to the Railways or the Airways if the transportation is not profitable. Then they say: “We can easily transport the packages. ” Why do they not want to render a service? They are only prepared to transport high-rated goods.

I think that all of us should be very grateful for the concessions that have been made to the farmer, for in this regard a very great problem has always been experienced. There was a problem with the transportation of people. As far as the use of these pick-ups are concerned, one finds, for example, that a person who has his own grocery store, will use such a pick-up. In this regard representations were received from places such as Uniondale. The people there drive to George when they want to buy something. Previously the people had had a very great problem in this regard. The concessions that have been made have consequently helped these people a great deal.

It has been said that these provisions should not be made with retrospective effect. However, it should be pointed out that people knew of this measure as long ago as November of last year. The department did not simply draft legislation. They called in the people and organizations involved to discuss this matter with them. In my opinion, people who still established undertakings after the deadline, are not entitled to ask to be accommodated today.

One thing is certain: It is not necessary to phase these pick-ups over a period extending to 1981. I think that private enterprise received exceptional co-operation and treatment from the Van Breda Commission and the department. One could almost say that road transport has been renewed completely. For example, phenomenal improvements have been made with regard to the permit system. Colossal concessions have been made on the part of the Railways and the Department of Transport. I think that they should show some gratitude or at least appreciation for that.

It was said to the people who appeared before the commission that trailers would be misused, but they said that they would never do so. They also pointed out repeatedly that it would cause a problem if the pick-ups were misused. Now it is being said that there are loopholes in the legislation. It is not that we did not see those loopholes, but we were trying to ensure free competition. Now we see that in the case of one person alone, almost 100 pick-ups were rebuilt in order to circumvent the Act. The person in question also appeared before the commission. I do not believe that it is reasonable to ask that these clauses be revised. Consequently, I gladly support the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have been very reasonable with this provision. However, before dealing with the Bill, I should just like to thank the hon. members for Orange Grove, East London North and Langlaagte for the words they addressed to me. I do not want to say anything about it because it is an emotional matter. Just allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree with me that this is a strange place. It is not very easy to come here. There is only one way in which one can become a member of this club …

Yes, it cost a great deal of money.

… one has to win an election. One arrives at the Other Place in a different way again. That is not very easy either. Often it costs one a great deal of money. The most extraordinary thing in this respect is that once one is a member of this House, it is almost more difficult to leave it again.

Ask Helen. [Interjections.]

One grows fond of this place and if one has been a member for many years, one would like to stay here. Then it becomes very difficult to leave this place. I have been a member of this House for more than 18 years and I think the time has come for me to make room for someone else.

Take Helen with you! [Interjections.]

I was Deputy Minister for almost two years and Minister for almost 11 years. I think that that is enough. I think one should know when one has had enough and when the time has come to leave. I want to express my sincere appreciation for what I received here by way of friendship and cooperation, not only from this side of the House, but from the other side as well. As time went by the hon. member for Orange Grove and I became good friends. We undertook excursions together and grew to know each other and although the fish did not always bite as we wanted them too, it was nevertheless very pleasant. I think we also perceived the good in each other which we would not otherwise have done.

The hon. member for East London North said that I always approached his problems with sympathy. I believe that if I can say “yes” to a person, you can simply say it abruptly and then chase him out as well. He is satisfied. But when you know in advance that you have a problem and cannot easily say “yes”, you must listen to him with great sympathy and patience so that when you are compelled to say “no” in the end, at least the “no” does not have to sound so bitter as it would have sounded if you had simply said “no” at the outset. Therefore it may be that on the occasion when I listened to the hon. member patiently and sympathetically I probably had problems beforehand with whether I would be able to say “yes” to him. I was perhaps compelled to say “no”. Nevertheless it was a very great privilege for me to be here and I do not want to elaborate on that, except to express my appreciation to everyone, to the Chair as well.

I said that we have been very reasonable in this Bill. As I indicated, these problems arose as a result of a deficiency we did not notice with the drafting of the original Act and people have been making use of this opportunity in an adroit way. I think it is correct to say, as the hon. member for Langlaagte rightly pointed out, they did not consider at that time that pick-ups would be misused. In fact, evidence was submitted by persons who had made the greatest use of pick-ups. I have been informed that they expressed the opinion that it would be absolutely uneconomical to operate with pickups. Nevertheless it developed into a major business.

I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member for Orange Grove or any other person today, but I think that this hon. member will agree with me that in the days when the original legislation, which is on the Statute Book today, was drafted, it was not envisaged in any way that such a business concern would be built up with pick-ups. If the commission had been of that opinion at that stage, they would have made the necessary provision and would have drawn up the legislation to read that the pick-ups could only be used for private purposes. Consequently it is not contrary to the statutory provisions to do what has recently been done, but this is completely at variance with the philosophy underlying the legislation. Be that as it may, we thought that it was a problem that had to be rectified. Initially we considered withdrawing these pick-ups used in this way from the road by providing that they may only be used for private purposes, but then we found that a substantial capital investment was involved in the matter and that a considerable number of people had been employed. It was then felt that there should be a phasing-out period. During our negotiations with the transport organizations we first considered the possibility of a phasing-out period up to the end of 1981, but after having begun to experience this major oil crisis, we felt that if we did so, we would be giving these people a legal guarantee as it were that they could proceed with their undertakings up to the end of 1981, while we might be compelled in the meantime to undertake withdrawals as a result of the shortage of fuel. We then felt in duty bound to adopt a different method. The method on which we then decided, is the one I am now asking to be placed on the Statute Book. The businessmen who are able to prove that their vehicles were in use on 1 January 1979, may apply to the National Transport Commission for a permit to use those vehicles up to the end of 1981 or up to a date which the National Transport Commission may determine. In view of the circumstances I consider this a reasonable measure.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why the date is 1 January 1979 and not now?

I shall come back to that in a moment I just want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that the issue here is not competition with the Railways. I do not think this aspect is relevant here. What is relevant here, is that we did not eliminate a loophole in 1977 because we did not foresee it at that stage. This aspect has nothing to do with competition with the Railways. Furthermore I want to tell the hon. member that any person is free to apply to the Road Transport Board for a permit at any time—not only now—for a ¾-ton or 1-ton pick-up. In other words, this measure for which I am now asking this House’s approval, will not mean that one cannot obtain a permit for a 1-ton pick-up. As in the case of any other vehicle, one may apply to the Road Transport Board for a permit, and if it is justified on merit, one may be granted a permit. I want to tell the hon. members for Orange Grove and East London North—actually I think the hon. member for Langlaagte dealt with this effectively—that they should bear in mind that the Railways has to render a service irrespective of the volume involved. It is expected of the Railways to render a service with its train services and its road transport services. In those two respects the Railways is very different from the private carrier. The private carrier only does business if the tariffs are so high that he can make a profit. I do not take it amiss of him. It is only natural. He only embarks upon it to make a profit. On the other hand the Railways renders a national service with its road transport and train services. It is expected of the Railways to accept everything offered to it, whether profitable or not. In addition it is also expected to render a regular service, once or twice per day or once per week, whether the scope of the business justifies it or not.

The hon. member also asked me a question with regard to the date. I think this is the other important matter which I must still deal with. I want to agree with the hon. member for Langlaagte that the people who undertook cartage services of this nature knew that a measure in this regard would be introduced before 31 December of this year. Negotiations were entered into with them and I have been informed that it was in fact the carriers who said that 1 January 1979 would suit them. Since this is the last legislation I am dealing with here, and in case there is a possibility that we are doing people an injustice in this way, I am prepared to effect an amendment during the Committee Stage changing the date to 1 April. I think 1 April is fair, although the hon. member mentioned the end of June. If I were to make it to the end of June, it would mean that the carriers would still be able to buy a considerable number of vehicles before the end of the month. This I cannot allow. In other words, the date must be in the past. In view of the circumstances it would be an accommodation if we made it the 1st April and I shall not…

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has said that anybody can go along at any time to obtain a permit to operate a ¾-ton vehicle. I want to ask him whether this is correct, because the proposed paragraph only gives the National Transportation Commission the right to give a permit on condition “that such goods vehicle was used on 1 January 1979” while it is now to be 1 May.

The purpose of this measure is to give special compensation, special consideration, to those vehicles that were in use on 1 January 1979, in other words they are receiving better treatment than the “rank and file”. The rank and file must apply in the usual way, but in the case of the former we shall consider additionally that they received vested rights under lawful circumstances. For that reason they will be dealt with more favourably than the ordinary man who applies for a permit.

I appreciate the support I have received with regard to this measure.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading I referred to the contents of clause 13 where it says that the intention of the clause is to ensure that community councils could not make regulations, but anything “for which publication is required to give such decision the force of law, shall be published by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.” I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether there was not a contradiction in the proposed subsection (6), which states—

Then it is stated quite specifically—

There is quite clearly an obligation on the Minister to publish. What is he going to publish? In my opinion the regulations would be about building or anything else which falls under the sphere of influence of the community councils. What is it that requires publication that the Minister is obliged to publish if it is not the regulations? If that is the situation, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is correct in terms of clause 15 that the Minister there takes the powers to make regulations, and how does that then affect the community councils and the fact that they have no power to make regulations? Does the hon. the Minister’s department make one set of regulations which cover all community councils within a region or within the area of an administration board, or how does the regulation power operate in this situation.

Mr. Chairman, the whole idea behind this clause is to remove the doubt which existed in regard to the question whether community councils had the power to make regulations or not. Our local authorities which function in terms of ordinances are a good example. Those ordinances, however, are authorized by the provincial administrations. The same thing is now happening here, where the community council is the local authority and does not have the power to make such ordinances. The power structure in this regard is the department, and therefore those ordinances are promulgated by the Minister in the Gazette.

The rest of the clause has a bearing on cases in which a community council and another authority have legal authority in regard to the same matter. A good example of this, and one which is very topical at the moment, is the problem with regard to dogs, a problem which is being experienced in the Eastern Cape in particular. The municipal area there includes the community council as well, and the local ordinance does not have legal authority over that. This clause now enables us to grant the community council jurisdiction in accordance with the local municipal areas. The clause therefore simply effects a correction in this regard.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, clause 18 deals with the short title of the Bill, and the short title states that this is to be known as the laws on Plural Relations and Development. The hon. member for Parys had certain disparaging remarks to make about “plurals” and I think it has been agreed and accepted that the name “Plural” and “Plural Relations” will no longer be used, but that “Co-operation” is going to be used in this respect. Clause 17 of the Bill provides the following—

In this clause there is no reference as such to the actual Bill before the House. I therefore wish to move as an amendment—

This amendment has the effect that the Bill before the House will, when it becomes an Act, be called “The Laws on Co-operation and Development Amendment Act, 1979”. We must also bear in mind that we are really amending a whole lot of other laws as well. For example, we are also amending the Moroka Ward Land Relief Act, the Black Labour Act of 1964, the Black Taxation Act of 1969, the Black Affairs Administration Act of 1971 and the Community Council Act of 1977. No reference has been made to any other plural law, and it would therefore be sensible to omit the word “plural” and to replace it by “co-operation”. I take it that the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept my amendment as a last gesture of his in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Hillbrow, but unfortunately he forgot about something. It is not yet 1 July. This legislation is before the House at present and must therefore still be known as the Laws on Plural Relations and Development Second Amendment Bill. From 1 July the name “Co-operation and Development” will be applicable. It is simply a matter of this Bill which is before the House, still being valid.

What will they be called?

The Department of Co-operation and Development. From 1 July they will be called the Department of Co-operation and Development.

In view of the fact that the object will be achieved, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Order! In other words, there will be no co-operation before 1 July.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We are dealing here today with one of our smaller national groups, but at the same time a national group which distinguishes itself very clearly from the other Black nations of South Africa. From what could be established about the early history of the present nation of Venda, it appears that the last immigrants crossed the Limpopo River long before 1700 and settled in the Nzhelele Valley in the vicinity of the Soutpansberg. According to tradition they encountered a local population there called Vhangona, and their descendants still form part of the population of Venda today.

The important groups which entered the country, such as Tshivhula, Ndou, Dau and finally Singo are still distinguishable today. For interest’s sake it can be mentioned that it was the latter group that built a capital with stone walls—Dzata—in the Nzhelele Valley and expanded the empire of Thovhele to cover a wide area.

Since the earliest times the nation of Venda has been acknowledged as a tightly-knit ethnic unit occupying a small definable area and sharing a great deal of common history, a particular culture and a language—Tshivenda—of remarkable uniformity. This language is a very important part of the Venda identity. It is no dialect, but a language in its own right and incomprehensible to its neighbours. Anyone who does not speak this language is not really regarded as one of the people.

The Venda are still living today where their forefathers have lived for centuries. As a nation, the Venda never emigrated from their present territory, while other groups did immigrate to Venda and were assimilated into the nation. This nation, as a result of the dry area along the Limpopo and the tsetse fly-infested South-east, remained in isolation to a great degree. Many aspects of the Venda culture, such as social structure and family organization, marriage, inheritance and property ownership, origin in totem groups, agricultural calendar and methods, plants cultivated, clothing and other things, especially when seen as a unit, are so unique as to be clearly distinguishable from the culture of other South African ethnic groups.

†Venda has always consisted of a number of independent chieftainships and its political situation was rather exceptional for Southern Africa. In Venda there are no tribees in the usual sense where the nation and their ruler form a unit. Here the ruling clan and its territory form a unit, with the commoners forming the movable part. The ruler rules by virtue of inheritance and if a ruler loses his land, he loses everything, including his right to rule.

No review of Venda history, however, concise it may be, is truly complete without mentioning the considerable influence of Joao Albasini (Tshiwawa) a Portuguese trader and agent of the Transvaal Republic, who in his capacity as Commissioner for Natives made use of armed Tsonga refugees from Mozambique, to maintain law and order in the area, to combat faction fights and to collect taxes, imposed by him on tribesmen in the area. A considerable number of these refugees settled along the south side of the Soutpansberg, under Venda chiefs whose rule they accepted.

Politically, Venda developed rapidly in the recent past, by accepting the status of a territorial authority in 1962, the establishment of a legislative assembly during 1971, and the declaration as a self-governing territory in 1973, and today we are dealing with the instrument which shall enable Venda to advance as a fully independent State.

On an occasion of this nature it may well be appropriate to view the State in its present form in different fields in an effort to determine the State’s ability to adapt and to fit into the commonwealth of nations and to have a glimpse into the future. In contrast with other Black States in the Republic, Venda has an exceptionally high percentage, namely 68%, of its de jure population living within its boundaries and, in addition to that, the Government of Venda is desirous, not only to recognize its people as citizens, but especially to resettle those living in the rural areas in Venda.

*It is worth mentioning that in the economic field, Venda maintained an annual average growth rate of 25,9% in its gross domestic product in the years from 1970 to 1975 and that the share of Blacks in that product was already 90% in 1975. The national per capita income is R228 per annum, and this income increased over the years mentioned above by an annual average of 18,8%. Venda is primarily an agricultural area which also has a very high potential in certain areas for the cultivation of coffee and tea. Up to the present, mining has not played a major role in the economy of Venda, but with the recent discoveries of large coal deposits, this potential, too, has increased considerably. As regards area and population, Venda is a small State, but for the sake of perspective it may be mentioned that a comparison with 28 other small countries— 10 in Africa and six each in America, Asia and Oceania—shows that Venda covers a larger area than 15 of those countries and has a larger population than 17 of them, while it has a lower population density than 18. It is also interesting to note that Venda had a higher per capita income in 1975 than 28 African States and that its real per capita income maintained an average growth rate higher than that of 45 African States. It is also of interest to know that while African States receive an average of R17,80 per capita of development aid, Venda receives R49,22.

As far as the assets of Venda are concerned, all that remains is to discuss the most important asset of the country, i.e. its people. From 1970 to 1977 the number of schools in Venda increased by 40,5% and the number of pupils by 60%, while the pupil-teacher ratio dropped by 30%. During this period the number of post-primary pupils, as a percentage of primary and post-primary pupils, increased with 250% and Venda university students increased by 50%. From these facts one can only conclude that a promising future awaits a nation that looks after its youth in this manner. I take pleasure in wishing Venda the grace of God for their future, and I do so with full confidence.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on behalf of this side of the House on his elevation to full Cabinet rank. We look forward to having dealings with him in his new department which, of course, also deals with the Black people of South Africa.

The Bill before us is the third of its kind to come before the House. It follows upon the legislation involving the independence of the Transkei and the independence of Bophuthatswana and must therefore be seen, not merely as a measure designed to affect Venda and its people, but also as part of the Government’s broad plan for separate development for the Black people of this country. It is, rather, another instalment in the Government’s practical guidebook for giving effect to the ideology of separate development, to which it has committed itself and the country, in an attempt to meet the political aspirations of Black South Africans. We see it against that background. Let me say at once, however, that we reject that concept in its entirety. We believe that it is a futile attempt to escape from the realities of the South African situation and a further example of the Government’s inability and refusal to face up to the facts of the South African situation. We also believe that it will, in no way, satisfy the ultimate aspirations of the Black people of South Africa. There is a basic and fundamental difference between us and the Government in regard to the ideology of separate development as a solution to the country’s race problems. We are not opposed to the development of Venda or any other underdeveloped area of South Africa. On the contrary, we welcome it. We are not opposed to the setting up of an appropriate infrastructure for the better local administration of Venda or any other region in South Africa.

You are opposed to nationalism.

We welcome it. To do these things, however, and then to add a few trappings in an attempt to simulate a spurious independence, excising a region from the responsibility and sovereignty of South Africa in the name of separate development, is something which we cannot be party to and which we reject categorically. That is really what is happening in terms of this legislation.

You are a colonialist.

We are talking, in terms of this legislation, about independence as a solution to the problem of the Venda people when we should, in fact, be talking about developing the area, about improving its infrastructure and administration and, above all, about meeting the political aspirations of the people of Venda along with those of all the other people in South Africa within the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister, who is not with us at the present time, spoke with very great enthusiasm, in his First Reading speech, of the great things that will be done, in terms of the Government’s separate development policy, for the Black people of South Africa. He suggested that he saw a great new vista opening up for these people to develop within South Africa. We know that the hon. the Minister is a man of great enthusiasm, and sometimes his enthusiasm can be, fleetingly at any rate, infectious. Despite the hon. the Minister’s enthusiasm, however, there is no way in which he can indicate to us—and I believe the people of South Africa—that in the long run, along the lines of separate development, we shall be able to find a solution to our race problems. In his First Reading speech the hon. the Minister indicated disappointment at the fact that we had not, in South Africa, reached the stage of, as he put it, getting the maximum unanimity and support of all Opposition parties for making all the people of South Africa really free, so as to bring out real equality for all. Those were the words of the hon. the Minister. Can we really say, however, that the effect of this type of legislation will be to make people really free in South Africa?

Of course.

Can we really say that the effect will be to bring about equality for all in South Africa?

Of course.

Those are the words the hon. the Minister used. That sycophantic member will naturally say “of course” and “hear, hear” to the hon. the Minister’s comments, but he is again not facing up to the reality of the situation in South Africa.

Let us be realistic, however, and face the facts. Can we really today, in all honesty, say that when the Venda people move around South Africa they will find themselves and feel themselves to be really free and really equal in the South African situation?

Why not?

I shall tell the hon. member why not in a moment.

I would be glad to hear it.

I shall tell that hon. member why not in a moment, if he will only be patient. The hon. the Minister will not get the unanimity and support for which he has lodged a plea as long as he treads the path of separate development in search of the freedom that he talks about. We are not prepared, on this side of the House, to participate in what is, after all, an absurd political charade. It is merely a question of playing games. It is an absurd pretence at independence designed to absolve us, in South Africa, from our real responsibilities for the Black people of South Africa. Let the hon. the Minister come to us and say “Help us, firstly, to develop the underdeveloped areas of South Africa and, secondly, to provide improved infrastructures for the administration of those underdeveloped areas. ” Then let him also come to us and say: “Help us to sit down with representatives of all the people of South Africa to find ways of giving meaningful rights to all people.” If that is his approach, he will get the unanimity and the support for which he pleads.

In his First Reading speech, the hon. the Minister also referred to my reference during that debate to the fragmentation of South Africa. He resented the fact that we had suggested that what was happening with this type of legislation was that South Africa was being fragmented. I do not know how he can resent that, because if this is not fragmentation, what is? If this type of legislation does not lead to the fragmentation of South Africa, then words have lost all their meaning.

Define “fragmentation”.

On the question of fragmentation, the hon. the Minister said in his First Reading speech (Monday, 4 June 1979, col. 7580)—

Those are the words of the hon. the Minister. I believe that what he was saying there was a very dangerous admission as to the Government’s attitude towards Blacks in South Africa up to the present time. What, after all, is the position of the individual Venda in South Africa now, before the passage of this Bill? What has his position been since Union or since the coming into being of the Republic? Has he not had a fatherland all that time? Has South Africa not been his fatherland? Has he not been part of the fatherland of South Africa? To say now that he is going to have restored to him the fatherland he seeks seems to me to suggest that in the past he has just drifted aimlessly, that he has not belonged to the South African society and that he has not been able to call South Africa his own fatherland. Surely, an individual Venda at the present time, in theory any way, is entitled to say: “I am a South African. I can carry a South African passport I am the responsibility of the South African Government, just as the English-speaking South African is, just as the Afrikaans-speaking South African is, just as the Zulu is and just as the Indian South African is.” Surely that is what he is entitled to say, in theory at any rate, at the present time. Can he not also say that, as regards the wealth, the economic potential of South Africa from the Cape to the Limpopo, the gold mines, the diamond mines and the great ports of South Africa, he is entitled to share them at the present time, in theory at any rate, with the rest of the people of South Africa? Yet we are told that now he is going to get his own “vaderland”. I believe that, surely, South Africa is his fatherland, just as it is the fatherland of all other groups and people in South Africa at the present time.

What the hon. the Minister is saying and the Government is doing when they suggest that they are doing a great favour to the Venda people by giving them their own fatherland, is in fact to produce some sort of new philosophy which says that the part is greater than the whole. They are saying to the Venda people: “We are taking away from you the rest of South Africa, but we are giving you a small segment and that will be yours.”

That is nonsense.

The hon. member who says that it is nonsense, may participate in the debate. He will have a full opportunity to do so.

There has been much talk of the Venda having opted for independence. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in his First Reading speech, spent a great deal of time indicating how it has been the choice of the Venda people that they should have independence. I could spend some time dealing with the elections that took place in Venda last year and dealing with the fact that the Venda Independence Party, which was the Opposition party and which had declared a stance of neutrality on the independence issue, in fact won the election. I do not, however, want to deal with that Other hon. members on this side will deal with those matters later. More important than these issues, is that we must ask ourselves, when we deal with legislation of this kind, what the other options were which were open to the Venda people, what their options were when we offered them this type of spurious independence. As South Africans they are denied rights in the Republic, their greater fatherland, they are discriminated against at every turn in South Africa, they are poor, they have unequal opportunities for advancement and they have no representation at all in the Parliament which makes the laws in terms of which they are governed. It is after all the firm conviction of the Government, and they cannot deny it, that these people should not have equal rights in South Africa, that they should not have an equal share with the rest of South Africa, that they should be denied equal opportunities, that they should be denied participation in government in South Africa and that their opportunities for advancement in South Africa should be restricted. That is Government policy.

Against this background and in this situation, the Government goes to the Venda people and says in effect: We will not give you rights and opportunities in the whole of South Africa, because you are Blacks, but we will offer you the small corner of South Africa where the bulk of your people have lived traditionally, and still live, and we will call it independence. This is what the Government in effect says to them. In other words, the Government says: Your options at the moment are nothing, on the one hand, or a very limited something, restricted to a very small portion of South Africa, on the other hand. This is really the option which the Venda people have had. In these circumstances, I can understand why some of the Venda people, perhaps the majority of them, have in a way been attracted by the offer of something instead of nothing and have accepted the so-called independence which is to be given to them in terms of this Bill.

Why so-called?

It is quite obvious, and I will explain it to the hon. member at a later stage. It will, after all, give the Venda people some authority over their small segment of the South African whole. It will give them some form of regional administration over a territory which is far from being economically or politically viable. It is, however, to the ever-lasting shame of the NP and of the Government that these are the only options which they offer the people of the so-called homelands.

I want to say further that I disagree entirely with the comments made by the hon. the Minister, who is not present at the moment, during the debate on the First Reading of this Bill when he said the following about this measure (Hansard, 4 June, col. 7579)—

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear!”. In fact, I believe that historians of the future will see this type of independence as a transparent, feeble and pathetic attempt by this Government to delay and avoid facing up to the facts of the situation in South Africa. I believe that historians of the future will condemn this as a futile stratagem of a White Government, blinded by twin blinkers of fear and prejudice and afraid to acknowledge that South Africa is one country to be shared by all of its people on the basis of equal opportunities for all. That is what I believe history will say of these attempts by the Government.

You will still swallow your words.

Order! The hon. member for Parys has already made a large number of interjections. He will do well to stop doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is what historians will say of it.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether, when he spoke about a transparent and feeble independence for Venda, he also includes in that definition the independence which Britain afforded to Lesotho and Botswana?

I am dealing with the South African situation. I am not dealing with what the British did. [Interjections.] We are meeting in the South African Parliament and we are dealing with territories over which we have sovereignty. I am not dealing with what other countries have done. I say that history will judge us of dodging our responsibilities, of closing our eyes to the facts of the South African situation, because whatever the Government’s motives and intention may be with this legislation, the third of its kind in South Africa, this will not meet the ultimate aspirations of the Venda people anymore than the Transkei’s independence will meet the ultimate political aspirations of the Xhosa people or Bophuthatswana’s independence the aspirations of the Tswana people. So long as these people and the people of the other so-called homelands are part of the economy of South Africa—they are fully and totally integrated in that economy—so long will they claim the right to share South Africa with all its people. This is the reality of the situation and the Government will never, until they face up to these facts, get from the Opposition the unanimity for which they plead.

We on these benches are certainly not prepared to be party to this attempt to give away a further segment of South Africa, to escape from reality, and to evade the real issues. We believe this can only bring inestimable harm to South Africa in the long run.

I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (1) provides for the further, unnecessary and inadvisable fragmentation of the Republic of South Africa;
2. (2) eliminates the right of the Venda people to their equitable share in the natural and economic resources of the country;
3. (3) will have the effect of depriving some South African citizens belonging to the Venda group of their South African citizenship without their consent;
4. (4) is not based on full and proper consultation with all the people concerned; and
5. (5) fails to provide for effective participation of people of Venda origin living permanently outside the proposed State of Venda in the political institutions of the Republic.”.

In considering this matter further, let us look at what we are doing with this legislation. What is Venda? The hon. the Deputy Minister was kind enough to give us a transcript of his Second Reading introductory speech in which he dealt with the historical background of Venda, and gave us some of the facts. Let us look at them again. What is this homeland which we are now so blandly leading into independence? Its land area is approximately 670 ha and it is divided into two pieces.

No, it is one piece.

Well, that does not matter.

It is a little bit of a corridor.

It has a de jure population of about 450 000 people of whom about 300 000 live in Venda itself and the rest in the Republic. According to the figures which the hon. the Deputy Minister has given, about 68% of the people live within the area itself and the rest within the Republic of South Africa. We are told by experts that the expected increase in the economically active population for the period 1977-’80 would be about 3 600 per annum. There certainly is no certainty as to how many of these people can be provided with employment within the territory of Venda itself. We are told further that the adult male dependency burden is higher in Venda than in other homelands and the figure given is 367,1 which means that every 100 men have to support 367 children.

On the plus side it has some mining potential, and perhaps this is its most hopeful feature. We are told that there are coal deposits and some copper deposits. There may also be some other mineral potential. Its agricultural potential at the present time centres around cattle-raising, forestry and mixed farming, notably fruit. Its industrial potential is limited in the sense that it is very far from the most important markets. It has no growth points at the present time. The figures given by Benbo indicate that in 1976 there were two developed and proclaimed towns within the territory, one the township of Makwarela, which had 1 060 plots of which 462 had been sold or allocated to the Venda Government Service, and the other one a town called Shayandima which had 1 491 plots of which about 484 had been sold at that stage or taken up by the Government Service. We are told further that the estimated income earned by Venda migrant workers working outside of Venda amounted to 78% of Venda’s gross national income. We are told that about 20% of this was channelled to the homeland itself. This hardly presents a picture of great economic viability, or of a State, this new State which the Government is so proudly launching at the present time, being able to take its place with ease amongst the nations of the world.

What about the question of citizenship? We have dealt with it in our amendment. Last year the then Minister of Plural Relations and Development told us that it was Government policy that within a space of five years there would not be a single Black South African, and that Blacks would be compelled into a situation in which they would opt for or be given citizenship of their own States. What about the Venda people at the present time? Are the 68% who live within the territory and the 32% who live within the Republic of South Africa going to lose their rights in terms of this legislation? It is specifically stated in clause 6 of the Bill that they will have to forfeit and give up their rights to South African citizenship.

They are not going to lose their rights.

But the Bill says they are going to lose their rights.

No, their citizenship.

Oh, I am sorry: They are going to lose their citizenship.

There is a big difference.

Then it assures them that they are not going to lose their other rights in South Africa. We, of course, know that even in respect of the question of citizenship, certain people will still lose rights as a result of that. It has been argued before that the people who enjoy section 10 rights will not lose their citizenship rights on the day when this Bill is promulgated, but certainly their off-spring, the future generations, will lose their right to South African citizenship.

You are not correct.

Well, there certainly is a threat to their citizenship. The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot deny that the Bill says that they are going to lose their South African citizenship. It says so in very specific terms. I quote clause 6(1)—

I also quote clause 6(3)—

It is therefore quite clear that they are going to lose their citizenship.

While I am on this, I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will explain to us why there is a difference between the citizenship clause in this Bill and the similar provision in the Status of Bophuthatswana Act, which was passed by Parliament in 1977. Section 6(3) of the Status of Bophuthatswana Act provides that—

In this Bill there is no similar provision concerning the renunciation of citizenship by agreement or otherwise. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain why that omission occurs in this particular Bill.

The questions which are important are the questions relating to viability, to citizenship and to the options people had or did not have when it came to choosing the sort of independence which the Government is about to provide. Of course, there is no provision— and this is mentioned in our amendment—for any realistic political rights to be recognized for the 32% of the Venda people who live outside Venda. Presumably, again in terms of Government policy, their political rights and aspirations—and the Government will feel this way—no matter where they live, where they work and how they have lived and; worked there, will have to be exercised in relation to the homeland authority and there will be no recognition of their political rights in respect of the rest of South Africa, where they work and live. We believe that this Bill, by itself and certainly as part of the Government’s whole plan of separate development for South Africa, is in every respect a bad Bill and we reject it categorically.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave said only one thing on which we can agree with him. Right at the beginning of his speech he congratulated the hon. the Deputy Minister on his promotion to Cabinet status. We on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves with that. There is no doubt in our minds that the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to hold that office with great distinction, just as he has held the office of Deputy Minister of Development with great distinction during the past few years. So far, I agree with the hon. member. However, I do not agree with the rest of his speech. He concluded his speech by referring to the citizenship of Venda. Evidently he knows better than the Venda citizens themselves what they want. A report in Die Transvaler of 7 June 1979—just a week ago, read—

Now the hon. member must listen carefully. What follows, is in inverted commas—the very words of Chief Mphephu. He says—

The hon. member must listen to this—

Furthermore, the hon. member for Musgrave spoke of Venda with great contempt. He told us how small the country was, about the lack of viability, that poverty prevails there, and he mentioned all the problems of Venda. We on this side of the House accept that there are small nations, that there are poor nations, but we do not accept that there are inferior nations. Every nation has an inalienable right to self-determination and to being simply itself. The hon. member betrayed his point of view when he said the PFP refused “to give away a segment of South Africa”. He said: “We refuse to give away a segment of South Africa.” Thereby, the hon. member proclaimed a kind of imperialism with which we on this side of the House differ radically; we are poles apart. I do not understand the hon. member for Musgrave. Even if I were to live a thousand years, I should not be able to understand him, because in a thousand years’ time there will still be peoples and nations as there have been peoples and nations in millenniums past. His point of view is a disparagement of nationalism and I find it quite impossible to understand.

If I observe what is happening around us today, if I observe what is happening in Africa, if I observe what is happening in the world as reflected in the membership of the UN, it is obvious that the membership of the UN has doubled since its inception. Nations are not amalgamating but are seceding and forming new nations. One thing is very obvious to me: Nationalism is an irrepressible and impelling force. The right of nations to self-determination is an undeniable fact, and nations have been prepared in the past to pay any price for the sake of this self-determination, to make every sacrifice and to brave every privation. In the past, and today still, nations have not flinched from bloodshed and violence for the sake of this right to self-determination. In the face of this ineradicable urge of every self-respecting person, one still encounters people such as the hon. member for Musgrave who oppose that. Admittedly, he represents an insignificant and inconsequential group of people who want to try to stem the tide of history, and they will not succeed for, as the late Dr. Malan said: One can no more halt nationalism than one can halt the south-easter with a sieve. I simply do not understand those hon. members. In a world of 4 000 million people, I know only of the party of the hon. member for Musgrave and the NRP that follows on its heels like a little yapper, that hold that point of view. Just look at them. There are well over 20 of them. Rarities indeed, curios who should be preserved in a museum one day. Sir Walter Scott once said: “Breathes there a man with soul so dead, who never unto himself hath said: This is my own, my native land.” That is the tide of history, the most profound urge in the heart of man, but those hon. members disparage it. I do not believe Sir Walter Scott could have imagined in his wildest dreams that in the last quarter of the 20th century, there would still be people who would not be able to say: “This is my own, my native land.” However incomprehensible that is, they are at least consistent. We often have reason to accuse them of being inconsistent, but here they are at least being consistent. After all, people who do not claim self-determination for themselves, do not grant it to others, either. They have accordingly opposed every single step in the direction of independence and self-determination over ourselves. They opposed the legislation for our own South African citizenship and wanted us to adhere to foreign citizenship. They disputed all our symbols and wanted to hoist another flag. They believed, moreover, that we should sing the national anthem of another nation to give expression to the deepest stirrings of our hearts. Those people opposed the establishment of a Republic and they attached large posters with “No” to every tree and lamppost in the country. People who do not claim freedom for themselves do not grant it to other people, either. However inexplicable I find the attitude of the Opposition, I do believe that they are at least being true to themselves.

The Venda are a proud people and have, for years already, had their own symbols and their own flag. The Venda flag is a four-colour flag, with a vertical blue stripe to symbolize the blue of the sky. The three horizontal stripes are: Green, to symbolize the verdancy of the environment; yellow to symbolize the floral wealth of Venda; and brown to symbolize the fertile soil. Venda also has its own beautiful coat of arms. At the top there is a drum, symbol of the nation being called together. In the middle of the coat of arms there is an elephant and below that there is the gripping, stimulating motto “Shumela Venda”: Always aspire—strive for Venda.

At the First Reading of this Bill, the hon. member for Mooi River said this was a creation of the NP. The NP claims credit for many things, but it is not the NP that implanted this urge to freedom in the heart of man. It simply is there; one is born with it. Last week I had the privilege of having tea with a few Cabinet members of the Venda Government. I think it was a day or so after the introduction of the Bill. As we were sitting at the table …

Did you take them for lunch in the Parliamentary dining-room?

Yes, we were in the dining-room.

The Parliamentary dining-room?

Yes, in the VIP lounge. [Interjections.]

*All of them ordered tea while I ordered coffee. They asked me to excuse them for not ordering coffee, since they came from Venda and tea was grown there. They were therefore supporting their own industry. Now, that is nationalism talking.

The orange farmers do that as well.

I sat next to one of the chiefs. He told me about his country, he told me about its history—as the hon. the Deputy Minister told it to us today—and about the Venda traditions. He waxed lyrical when he told me of the blue of the Soutpansberg and the tea plantations like oases against the slopes of the hills. He told me of the fertile soil where one could plant any stick and it would grow. He told me of Venda with its forestry, its horticulture, its field husbandry and its stock-raising. Talking to him, I got the impression that in the vicinity of the Soutpansberg there was a region that to him was more wonderful than any other place on earth.

I asked that Venda chief why they wanted independence. He looked at me in surprise for asking such a silly question. I shall never forget his reply. He told me they were merely reclaiming what they lost 80 years ago. He told me they had always been an independent and proud nation. They are merely reclaiming it now. What impressed me, was that he did not tell me they were claiming independence since we were so magnanimous as to grant it to them. He did not thank me. I should have felt paternalistic if he had done so. He told me he was claiming his birth-right. Throughout all the years and all the ages they had been an independent nation. He told me we had deprived them of their independence, and they now wanted to take it back. Surely that was an expression of nationalism. Surely, one has respect for that type of person. [Interjections.] As is usually the case when one is engaged in elevated things one also thinks of the ridiculous—“from the sublime to the ridiculous”, as the saying goes. At that moment I thought of the Opposition, and the debate that had been conducted in this House the previous day. I wished the Opposition could have had the vision that that Black man has. I wished they had had the heart-beat of that Venda chief, that the flames of nationalism could bum in their hearts as they bum in the heart of that Black man.

The hon. member for Musgrave spoke with great contempt of the independence of Venda. Venda unanimously asks for independence. The Opposition party of the country also asks for it. They also served on the sessional committee. This committee made a unanimous recommendation and their council made a unanimous decision on the matter. Now, what is the attitude of the PFP? “No”, they say; an unequivocal, arrogant and paternalistic “no”.

What I find to be the most serious shortcoming in the attitude of the Opposition, is that in their opposition to this Bill, they are demonstrating their lack of credibility. Two years ago we had to hear about the 14 principles of the Marais Commission whether they were relevant or not. Then it was an unassailable and sacred cow. Anybody who did not endorse every jot and tittle of those 14 principles, was cast into the outermost political darkness. [Interjections.]

Where is the proof of what you are saying now?

I am here referring to one of the principles of the Marais Commission. The hon. member must listen carefully now. Let me first ask the hon. member for Musgrave whether he still endorses the 14 principles of the Marais Commission. [Interjections.]

We shall not get a reply from him. [Interjections.]

Have those hon. members rejected those 14 principles? [Interjections.]

They sit there as quiet as mice. No reply.

One of those principles read—

†Mr. Speaker, I believe this is very clear. I want to state here very emphatically that I believe in an old-fashioned morality where a man’s word is still his bond. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Orange Grove waxed very eloquent on the question of morality and Christianity the other evening. He accused the NP of being un-Christian and immoral.

It is because you are a bunch of atheists.

I want to ask those hon. members whether they accept that trustworthiness and credibility are the hall-mark of the Christian and of morality.

The question is: Do you yourself believe in that? [Interjections.]

I accept that unequivocally. However, I want to ask the hon. member for Wynberg, when his party states boldly, unequivocally, unambiguously that they will respect—and I am now quoting from their principle—the wishes of people to self-determination …

The answer is “yes”.

The hon. member says the reply is “yes”. Does the hon. member then accept that?

Yes.

In that case I want to put it to the hon. member for Wynberg that every deviation from that principle is an act of the grossest dishonour. [Interjections.]

There has been no deviation, but what you have offered them is so terrible that you ought to be ashamed of it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we must not be guided by expediency, but by our conscience. This principle of the Marais Commission lays down three criteria for self-determination. It says a certain geographic area must be an economic growth-point. It must be a political growth-point, and the people must freely elect self-determination. I believe Venda complies with all three these criteria. [Interjections.] It is an economic growth-point.

You have no concept of what you are saying now. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us …

He does not know what he is talking about.

… the gross national income of Venda increased by 18,8% a year during the last couple of years.

From what?

Is there any country in Africa, any country in the world, that can match that? There we had an increase of 18,8% a year.

From what?

It is a growth-point. [Interjections.] This principle states clearly that an area must be an economic growth-point.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove, who finds this so highly amusing, was the one who waxed so eloquent on the question of morality the other evening. But today he is prepared to dishonour what he so boldly states in this very principle. I find that objectionable. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Marais Commission further states it must be a political growth-point. There has been political development in Venda since 1950. Allow me to mention a few of those developments. In 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act brought about the establishment of a territorial authority. In 1962, the Venda territorial authority was declared. In 1969, more powers were given to the territorial authority. In 1971, a Legislative Assembly was established in terms of chapter I. In 1973, the territorial authority of the Legislative Assembly was proclaimed a self-governing territory, under chapter II. Later, in August 1973, the first general election in Venda was held. This indicates an evolutionary development, a constitutional development until this point has been reached where they are now asking for sovereign independence. Surely, this indicates that Venda is a political growth-point. However, a third criterion is laid down, and that is that a nation must freely elect self-determination. Venda did not only freely elect self-determination, but did so unanimously.

The alternative was “baasskap”.

I challenge the hon. member to stand up here and say that we urged them to accept independence. [Interjections.] They freely elected to do so.

What was their alternative?

They had no alternative.

I cannot support the amendment of the Opposition, because it negates nationalism. It smacks of arrogant paternalism. It is unveracious, and consequently I reject that amendment and support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to the most extraordinary effort by the hon. member for Port Natal who, wallowing in sentiment…

You’re a mere political corpse. You’re talking nonsense.

If that hon. member could understand one word of what I am saying, I would think he was clever, but that hon. member has no chance. I really think that he should retire from the scene, and from Parliament, too, let me add. The hon. member for Port Natal was, in his speech, blowing up the virtues and wallowing in the sentiments of nationalism, telling us what a marvellous thing nationalism is and how the people have accepted it as the golden light in their future, and so on. Nobody however, certainly in the party that I represent, is opposed to the nationalism of the people of Venda. We are only too pleased that the people of Venda should be allowed to express their nationalism and should, within the territory that is theirs, have a form of government that is satisfying to them because it is a natural development in the history of South Africa, structured as it is.

The historical structure of this country is the heritage of colonialism. There is no doubt about that. The other day, when we opposed the First Reading of the Bill, we were attacked by the hon. member for Lyndenburg who was here a minute ago but who has just gone out. He said that our whole attitude towards this Bill is one of colonialism because we want to keep the Venda people in subjection. [Interjections.] That is, of course, the greatest nonsense imaginable, because let us understand quite clearly what colonialism means. Let us first understand what that is, but then let us also understand what is being done to Venda in terms of this Bill. Let us understand what the alternatives are, and only when we have established all those facts will we be able to take a balanced, rational and reasonable decision on the merits of the Bill before the House. The hon. member for Lydenburg really went to town. He said “die Afrikaner weet van kolonialisme”, as though they were the only people in South Africa who suffered under colonialism. My own family, on both sides, were in the Government of the Colony of Natal, and they carried on an endless struggle with the Colonial Office at Whitehall.

They still voted “No.”

Yes, they voted “No”, and quite rightly so because they had very strong sentimental ties which they were entirely entitled to have. Does that hon. member hold it against us that we voted “No” because we felt that that was the right thing to do? Does he deny us the right to do so or does he not? [Interjections.] Does he or does he not? [Interjections.] A referendum was held and everybody was expected to express themselves freely and honestly and to say what they felt in their hearts, and they did so. However, when the Republic came we accepted it, and we are now just as much members of this Republic as that hon. member will ever be. In fact, in some senses a great deal more. [Interjections.] So his coming along and drawing that kind of red herring across the path is not, I think, worthy of this House at all.

Let me point out one of the classical hall-marks of colonialism. Let us go back, in the history of colonialism, to its birth, to the regime of Colbert at the time of Roi Soleil in France. In mercantilism the whole idea was to have a dependent territory which only had certain things to export, and those things had to be exported to the mother country. The dependent territory could also only buy through the mother country. There was consequently a dependent relationship that existed between the two. What we are finding here is disguised economic colonialism. That is what is happening and that hon. member, more than anybody else, should know it. The territory of Venda is a small territory, and the hon. the Deputy Minister has admitted it.

May I pause at this moment to congratulate him on his promotion. I regret that the hon. member got me so stirred up that I omitted to do so earlier. I should like to convey to the hon. the Deputy Minister the congratulations of this party on his promotion. May I say, Sir, that with regard to any matter with which I approached him, I have always found him to show great fairness and great understanding. I hope that this is a relationship that will continue.

I want to say to the hon. members on the other side, and specifically to the hon. member for Lydenburg who talked about colonialism the way he did and who attacked us for being colonialists, that his party and his Government are now creating inside South Africa a ring of satellite States which are nothing other than economic colonies of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member knows that that is the situation, and all the talk we get from him about this great vision of nationalism, about independence and the fulfilling of “die volk se wil” is not going to fulfil the desire those people have for a real, viable independence. The hon. members know that it cannot be done. They know that in the present territory of the State of Venda it is not being done. It is for that very reason that they have appointed a commission to go into the question of consolidation in order to make it more viable, if possible, than it is with its present boundaries.

Why do you not emigrate?

The Government has introduced a Bill to the effect that the State of Venda shall be independent. This is the third occasion on which a Black State has been given its independence. There will also be others in the future. I want to ask the hon. members opposite what alternative was offered to the people of Venda in the place of independence, an alternative which would fulfil what one can take to be their normal legitimate desires and aspirations, their seeking for rights and self-realization. I want to say categorically to the hon. the Deputy Minister in charge of the Bill and to the hon. members opposite that the alternative offered was such that, even though the independence of Venda is not going to be fulfilling and satisfying to the people of Venda, they opted for that rather than remain in the situation in which the Government has put them. It is a condemnation of the party on the other side that, inadequate, insufficient and unfulfilling as the independence is the Venda people are getting, even that is to them preferable to the situation in which they found themselves before the introduction of this Bill. I think that, if ever there was a condemnation the party on the other side has had to answer, that is it. History will judge them on the alternative offered where the people of Venda were part of the Republic of South Africa.

Let me say that it is perfectly possible, even now, within the confines of the geographical area of Southern Africa to evolve a system whereby the people of Venda could still be included within the overall concept of “people of South Africa”. The NP failed entirely to offer them that alternative. They said to them they could remain as they were, which they found intolerable, or they could become independent, which they accepted because that at least gave them a chance to work themselves out of the situation in which they find themselves at present. I defy any hon. member on the other side to say that that is not a true statement on what is happening in our country. And it will happen again, it will happen to other people, because nowhere in the thinking of the party opposite is there an acceptance of the fact that these people are in fact South Africans, that they are part of South Africa. In order to have any kind of relationship with them at all, the NP has to force the nationalism of these people, a nationalism of which they are proud—and for that we give them all credit—into a separate independent political State.

Have you got no nationalism?

Have you got no brains?

If the hon. member has got brains, he must not sit on them, but he must use them.

I want to tell hon. members that what has happened is that the NP has forced the nationalism of Venda into a separate political State. They have taken, utilized and exploited the nationalism of those people to give them the appearance of a State.

I now want to discuss this State which the Government is giving them, I say that the Government has forced upon them a one-ended choice and not a real alternative. It was merely a question of their accepting what was offered because it was better than what they had. It is not, however, a choice which will fulfil the desires those people are legitimately entitled to or which will give them the share of what is going on in South Africa to which they are also legitimately entitled as people of South Africa.

I also want to refer to the question raised by the hon. member for Port Natal, and that is the question of “love of their own”. Everybody has a love of his own. Is that, however, enough for the foundation of a State which is going to carry the political future of a group of people like the Venda who have been part of a greater unit? They are being separated into a unit of their own, because of their love of their own.

That is the main foundation of any independent country.

The hon. member says that it is the foundation of any independent country. It is perfectly possible, as has happened over many years in South Africa ever since the Union of South Africa was founded, that all these people who have this love of their own—and the Zulu people above all others in South Africa, I should think, have a love of their own—still regard themselves as part of South Africa. It was not necessary because of their love of their own that they should be hived off into a separate State. There was absolutely no compulsion on them, because they had a love of their own, to move off into a separate orbit and do their own thing. It is only because the NP cannot accommodate other groups in its political thinking that they have to be forced in the direction of independence. There is no other reason other than that, because of the lack of foresight, courage, vision, accommodation and brotherly love in the NP, they cannot accommodate, within their political thinking, any group or any nationalism other than their own. That is why this Bill has been introduced.

I want to ask the NP whether this is now to be the end of the road for Venda.

It is the beginning of a new life.

It is the beginning of a new life and a new road to where? I challenge any hon. member to deny that the State of Venda is still going to be totally dependent or, to put the best possible construction on it, interdependent with the people of the Republic of South Africa. The Venda people will be in a situation where they will be wanting a share of the economic life of South Africa as a whole.

Like Mozambique.

And Zambia.

“Like Mozambique”? What on earth has Mozambique got to do with a situation like this? When was Mozambique ever a part of South Africa? When was Zambia ever a part of South Africa?

I am talking about wanting an economic share.

Lesotho.

Lesotho has been granted independence and they are today part of the customs union we have. I want to take peace as an example, since the hon. member for Rissik mentioned it. Lesotho is one of the most virulent members of the OAU, because there is no structured relationship between Lesotho and ourselves. On one occasion when we discussed the situation, the previous hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, said that there would be a relationship between all the independent States and the Republic of South Africa as there is with Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. There would be a customs union, a Rand monetary area and all that kind of thing. But of the three States that he mentioned, Lesotho is one of the most virulent enemies of South Africa. Botswana is one of the front line countries in the fight against Rhodesia.

I challenge hon. members opposite to tell me what steps they are going to take to see that the State of Venda, the third in the system they are setting up, does not drift off into another orbit which may well be one which is going to be a cross which we in South Africa will have to bear. Let us understand what is happening. People who were a part of the Republic of South Africa are now moving off into another situation. Nobody can deny that. There is to be a change in their status. The Status of Venda Bill gives them a different status. Therefore from the status they had, where they had a share in and a right to what was going on in South Africa as a whole, they will achieve a status where they are going to be a country of their own. There will have to be some sort of relationship worked out between the State of Venda and the Republic of South Africa. I want to know from the hon. members what they are going to do to include the State of Venda in the scene which is going on in South Africa. I say that they have deliberately excluded them. How can the Government, which has deliberately excluded the State of Venda from the broad scene in South Africa, find a way to knit together again the fabric they have now deliberately unravelled? They cannot do it. The whole thinking of the Government is to the effect that these States must go in their own direction, along their own road and into their own future. The one thing which, to my mind, distinguishes the NRP from the NP more than anything else is that where we can see …

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

No, please sit down. That hon. member cannot ask an intelligent question, so he must please sit down. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite have unravelled the political fabric of South Africa and there is no way they can knit it up again. But the NRP has already seen beyond the faults and the failings of the NP. We have introduced a concept into the political life of South Africa which sooner or later they are going to adopt in the same way they have adopted every other concept we have put forward over many years. They will adopt the concept we have introduced of a confederal relationship. We are already hearing about the story of a constellation of States from the other side of the House. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister in charge of this Bill to tell us what exactly he means by a constellation of States.

I shall tell you.

If one looks at the stars, one sees that a constellation is a thing of order. It has a centre and it consists of things which revolve in an ordered pattern. There is distance between them and they are subject to attraction and also a force of rejection. Is that what the hon. the Deputy Minister sees as a constellation of States, or what does he see as a constellation of States? I hope he will tell us, because we have made it quite clear that what we see as a confederation is a group of States, which may be independent or which may not be independent, which will surrender common power, a joint measure of power, to a central body which will be a confederal authority. That is one of the new things which is going to come. The hon. member for Port Natal said we live in a world of fragmentation, that there are 150 members of the United Nations. It is a phase in history and it happens every now and then in the course of the world’s history that “Statelets” come into being and people live off and then after a while coalesce again into a new formation or are conquered again by a new empire. Something happens which leads to a new grouping of units. That is what is going to happen in our world. One will find that the confederal idea of bringing these units together is one which is going to take root and grow. The NRP deliberately introduces it into the political system in South Africa, because that is the only way in which the situation which the NP is deliberately creating in this Bill, a situation of unravelling and of fragmentation, can be fitted together into an ordered pattern. What is required is an ordered pattern of co-operation, of common growth and of co-operation in the future. Only in that way can it be done. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us about any other way in which it can be done.

I want to take the matter one step further. The absolute prerequisite for independence is further consolidation. The hon. the Minister appointed a committee—the hon. member for Lydenburg and others are members of that committee—to look at consolidation. I want to say that consolidation is the political price that White South Africa has to pay for the policy of the NP. The disturbance introduced into the relationship between White and Black, the arguments about consolidation and the necessity for viability of independent States are the political price that White South Africa has to pay for the policy of the NP. I want to say that all that can be avoided by the implementation of a policy of confederation. It is not necessary to consolidate States into independent viable units if they are going to continue to be what they are today, but with an enhanced status as members of a confederal arrangement with the Republic of South Africa.

Very bad!

That hon. member says “very bad”. I challenge him to stand up and tell us why it is necessary to continue with all the disruption that consolidation brings about. Why does he not tell us? What is wrong with the hon. member? He knows such a lot about it and says it is “very bad”, but why does he not tell us that? What makes it necessary for us to pursue a policy of consolidation with all the disruption it brings about when it is perfectly possible within a confederal arrangement to give full authority to the homeland areas and to satisfy their every desire because they will still be participating in the general economic life of South Africa?

Will you not have constitutional disruption of …

I really do not think that hon. member has grasped the point I am trying to make. The point I am making is that there are today States-to-be or States “in wording” today who have Governments and territories, but are not independent. In terms of the policy of this party it is not necessary that those States should be consolidated, because consolidation is only a requirement, should they have to become independent. I think the hon. member agrees with me as he is nodding his head.

I do not agree, but I can understand your point.

I say that the whole process of consolidation, which will involve that party, the members of that committee and Black and White people, could be avoided. It is perfectly possible to avoid all the trouble, the agony and the anguish brought about by people being moved if one would accept that a State such as Venda could be part of a constellation, a confederation as we see it, a structured relationship between that State and the non-homeland area of South Africa. That is surely something we would desire to carry out Let us put the ideal we in this party have for the people of Venda eyeball to eyeball with the ideal hon. members on that side of the House have for them and then see who has the greater vision for the people of Venda—our party or that party. [Interjections.]

You cannot sell your policy.

I want to invite the hon. member for Aliwal to give me free time on television to debate that issue with him on television. Will he do that? They can allow each of us half an hour to state our policy. Will he accept that challenge? [Interjections.] Will the hon. member for Lydenburg accept the challenge to debate with me our policies on television? [Interjections.] He is “chicken”. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister accept this challenge?

Do you want to appear on television?

Yes, I do. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister accept the challenge? Let SA-TV allocate us an hour and then we divide it so that I have a half-hour and he has a half-hour in which each of us can explain our policy. Will he accept such a challenge? I do not get a reply. They are chicken, everyone of them.

I want to say to the hon. member for Lydenburg that we must understand …

Why do you quarrel with me so much today?

I am talking to him, Sir, because I am cross with him. [Interjections.]

We must understand what we are about in South Africa. We, the White people of South Africa, are the bearers in our hands of something which I regard as being of the most inestimable importance at this stage of the world’s history. We must see that that which we have in our hands, is perpetuated in South Africa. Part of our ideals is the free enterprise system which, in turn, is part of the whole Western value system. Which is the easier way to take the people of Venda with us into a future in which those values are going to apply, in which the free enterprise system is going to apply, in which all the things which make us Western people are going to apply: If we include it in a political relationship with us, or if we say to them, go into orbit, be independent and do your own thing? The hon. member for Port Natal, however, says they have a nationalism of their own which has to be realized and it can only be realized in an independent State.

I think that is the challenge which the hon. members must answer: Is there no other way of reconciling the nationalism of the people of Venda and their legitimate demand for political power, other than in an independent State? We say it is possible to do so, it is possible to structure a relationship with those people and with the peoples of the other homelands. We can create a country here which will be safe and secure from the threats of communism, because we have included all the people in our vision for South Africa as a whole.

To give point to what I have been saying, I move as a further amendment—

Mr. Speaker, before I give attention to the hon. members for Mooi River and Musgrave, I should like to convey my personal congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is now to become a Minister. As far as my university is concerned, I am a chauvinist. The hon. the Deputy Minister and I were friends as students and we served together on the students’ representative council of the University of Pretoria long ago. I congratulate him. We are very proud of him. The hon. member for Lydenburg and I were in the same residence at university, and I want to tell him that the old residence and the old alma mater are very proud of him as well. We wish him blessings from Above in the years to come.

Is it really necessary to say that these people were Tukkies? There are so many of them.

I hope the other colleagues are not jealous of the Tukkies now. [Interjections.]

I want to begin by saying a few words about my friend, the hon. member for Mooi River. If I had to describe him this afternoon on the basis of his speech, I would say: “He was a little boy lost.” The hon. member advanced a variety of arguments, and I must say that I cannot really understand the basic premise from which he argued. Because I do not understand the basic point of his argument, I find it very difficult indeed to understand the projections he wants to build and the way he wants to solve South Africa’s problems by these means.

The hon. member began by referring to colonialism and trying to extend this in a vague way to cover South Africa as well. I believe that the hon. member was also a student of history, and in the light of that I want to tell him that to a large extent colonialism goes hand in hand with imperialism. It is concerned with the desire of a certain individual or Government to extend its control all over certain territories. In the process, it takes possession not only of territories, but of people as well. All of history, from the time of Alexander the Great, is full of this, and also of the specific effect it has had on people. Africa, too, has experienced a considerable degree of colonization over the past few centuries at the hands of Europe, which arose from the desire of great powers to expand their territories. They did so for several reasons.

It differs from economic working citizens.

The colonization of Southern Africa had certain consequences for the native White population that was living here as well as for the diversity of other population groups in this region. One aspect which is always associated with colonization and imperialism is that the one who colonizes never shows the same measure of understanding and sympathy towards the people he has colonized, nor does he understand the boundaries within which a colonized nation finds itself. That is why one of the problems experienced by Africa today is the very fact that the colonizing powers drew borderlines cutting across the territories of the population groups or tribal units in Africa. This has caused problems, of course. One cannot understand this piece of legislation without a clear understanding of the colonizing process which took place in Africa and in Southern Africa. This applies to the southward movement of Black tribes as well.

When one talks politics today, one is inclined to refer back to one’s ancestors. My ancestors were not colonists in South Africa and they came here for other reasons than the hon. member’s ancestors. It no longer matters today, for at the moment, the hon. member and I are both members of the Caucasian group living in Southern Africa. We two have a great deal in common and I do not wish to offend the hon. member by referring back to those processes. In my opinion, that period is long past.

I want to put it to the hon. member that the piece of legislation which is before the House is one of the vital factors around which the policy development and evolution of the NP are built As a political party and as a political instrument, the NP has grown from the heart of a certain national group which also cherished certain ideals. One of these ideals was freedom and independence, and this is associated with love of one’s own culture and the preservation of one’s own culture. In the process, my own people, the Afrikaner people, came into conflict, first with the Dutch East India Company and then with British imperialism as well. At the beginning of this century, the NP was faced with the task of solving a number of major problems with regard to certain relationships between various peoples, in spite of the orderly regulation of individuals within the community, in the family context and in all the other facets of life.

In the first place, the NP had to bring about peace, harmony and synchronization between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. The hon. member for Mooi River is a member of the English-speaking community in South Africa today, and I want him to know that with its two-stream policy, which was initiated by the late General Hertzog, the NP has brought about a situation where we no longer have problems within the White community today between Afrikaans-speaking people, English-speaking people, Jews, Greeks or anybody else. Precisely because of the implementation of our policy we have succeeded in bringing about very great harmony within the White communities in Southern Africa.

The second major problem with which the NP has wrestled has been the problem resulting from contact with the Black people. From the outset, as recorded in the statements of Dr. Verwoerd, his predecessors on the Sauer Commission as well as General Hertzog, there have been certain basic premises. Firstly, there is a diversity of nations within Southern Africa. It does not matter how those nations are composed; there is a diversity.

[Inaudible.]

I just want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that if our ancestor, Willem Schalk, could see what has become of him, he would go back to Holland. [Interjections.]

That was the second major problem which the NP had to handle. It had to handle it under very difficult circumstances after the Second World War. However, the basic thing was that one was dealing with a diversity of nations. The various Black nations owned certain territories. Therefore this was theoretically an easy solution. However, it is difficult to implement this solution in practice, because there are a multitude of problems with which not only we as Whites were faced, but also the Blacks, who from an ancient subsistence economy had been propelled into a modern world which had arisen after the Second World War. There were enormous problems. However, the NP has given effect to the vital principles in a very pure way in this Bill. Therefore our basic premises are sound. So our projections are also sound.

I just want to tell the hon. member that there is a dualism in his political thinking. On the one hand, he is really an Englishman upholding the English and European values. However, there is a brain cell somewhere in the hon. member and in people who share his thinking which has not developed in Southern Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that he should take note of what Charles Darwin said. I shall leave it at that for the moment However, the hon. member must understand Africa. He cannot make any progress in Africa with that dualism in his political thinking. I shall leave the remarks of the hon. member for Mooi River at that. I think he is a good member and there is hope for him.

Before I come to the hon. member for Musgrave, I just want to say a few things about the Venda. My first theoretical introduction to the Venda goes back to the days when I was a first-year student. In 1952, I really got to know this particular ethnic group in the particular subject which I was studying. I realized then that we were concerned here with a very special ethnic unit in Southern Africa. I had a very special appreciation for them at an early stage. I even did research there at times. As lecturer and student, I also visited them with my colleagues.

At an early age, too, I read a whole number of ethnological works that had appeared about the Venda. I think that many of the people are dead today. There are still one or two people living who really left a heritage of great value, not only to the Venda, but to all of us, in that scientific field. One thinks back with piety to the pioneering work done by people such as H. A. Stayt in writing about The Bavenda. There were other works, too, such as Wessman’s The Bavenda of the Spelonken. A very well-known ethnologist—I think he has already retired, but is still living—Dr. N. J. van Warmelo, wrote the work called Contributions Towards Venda History, Religion and Tribal Ritual in the early thirties. These people, who wrote specific works about the Venda, as well as people such as Isaac Schapera, Hammond Tooke, Monica Wilson, Prof. J. Bruwer and others, identified these people at a very early stage, without any political preconceptions, as a specific ethnic group, one of the six or seven principal ethnic groups which we find in Southern Africa.

If we consider the Venda in the ethnic diversity of South Africa, it is unnecessary even to mention here that by all ethnological standards, this is really a very special people. We are concerned here with an ethnic-historical and therefore definitely identifiable ethnic group which in its own right moved into, occupied and owned a specific territory in the course of many decades. The reality of their existence was not only recognized and respected by my ancestors, they are now being given independence by my own generation for the first time since the Whites came to Africa.

The Venda have a special history which can be traced back a very long time. Their history forms a link with the kingdom of Monomotapa. They took part in the copper trade, which was undertaken from Messina many decades ago. Their artefacts show a very great resemblance with certain artefacts found at Mapungubwe and Bambandyanalo. Their culture shows a rich variety. When one considers some of their cultural customs, such as the well-known Domba dance, and other things to which the hon. the Minister also referred, it is clear that they are a very dignified nation, people with a special cultural heritage. They showed great ingenuity at a very early stage of their existence with regard to their artefacts. A very interesting facet of the Venda is that another, much smaller ethnic group lives among the Venda. They are the Vemba. The Vemba are a group with a completely different descent and history from those of the Venda. In ethnology, they are also known as the Black Jews.

Have you got a little homeland for them too?

They have a Semitic appearance. They also eat kosher food and …

Have you got a little homeland for them too?

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could establish a little homeland for the hon. member for Green Point in the nether regions. [Interjections.]

Build a furnace for him. [Interjections.]

They have a very strict endogamy and they also practise circumcision.

Having mentioned all these interesting facts about the Venda, I want to turn to the hon. member for Musgrave. As usual, the hon. member expressed his opposition to this Bill in very strong terms. I was also in this House when the legislation granting independence to Transkei and Bophuthatswana was discussed. I must say, however, that the sting and the venom and the determination of the Opposition to stop this legislation are no longer as fierce and as fiery as a number of years ago. I think the NP with its policy is weakening the resistance of the PFP. I do not want to offend the hon. member, but I must say that his arguments today really were not the same incisive arguments of a number of years ago. Moreover, I must say that the Press which supports him has not created the same terrible atmosphere as the one which was created when Transkei and Bophuthatswana became independent. To me, this proves that the PFP will very definitely have to take cognizance of these matters if they want to gain more White votes.

I should like to refer to a few statements made by the hon. member for Musgrave. In the first place, he rejects this Bill. He says he rejects it because it provides for the further, unnecessary and inadvisable fragmentation of the Republic of South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member the same thing as I told the hon. member for Mooi River. The present aspect of South Africa, with the borderlines as they exist today, is not the product of a truly spontaneous drawing of borderlines. The hon. member should once again examine the history of South Africa. Then he will agree with me that if history had been somewhat different, Swaziland might have been part of the Republic of South Africa today. Perhaps even Lesotho could have been a part of the Republic today. It is just possible that Venda, or the land of the Bapedi, could have been excluded today.

Therefore I cannot understand why the hon. member for Musgrave, a man who also concedes in his programme of principles that he does not want to injure or destroy ethnicity or group consciousness, nevertheless goes against history by wanting to deny us and the Venda the right of granting to them the land which belongs to them historically. I want to say to the hon. member—I say this without any bitterness in my heart—that I am an Afrikaner. The Afrikaner has been in this country for a very long time and my people …

Do you want a homeland …

I want to tell the hon. member for Joostenbergvlakte …

But do you want a homeland for the Afrikaner or not?

The hon. member is typical of that kind of cell which leaves an organism to perish in the outside world. If the hon. member keeps on doing that—well, I am not talking to the joiners and the “hensoppers” on the other side; I am talking to people such as the hon. members for Musgrave and Houghton.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Mr. Speaker, if that expression is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to use the word “hensoppers”?

No, and he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Why not withdraw your whole speech?

Instead, I say that people of that kind are “aansluiters” and “opgooiers”.

You are playing with the Chair, you know.

Sir, if that hon. Chief Whip would only tell his people to be quiet. I want to talk to you; not to them, for I have no desire to converse with people like them.

The hon. member for Rissik should rather continue with his speech.

In its fight for independence, my people also had to contend with the kind of imperialism which the PFP is displaying today. In the PFP, there is a new kind of imperialism which wants to control people not only physically, but spiritually as well. They want to control people spiritually by means of a new kind of imperialism. That is what my people fought against in the course of their struggles. For this reason, it is against my wishes and my own personal view of matters that my people should ever stand in the way of other people when it comes to their independence.

But is Venda still a part of South Africa?

I want to add this: When other nations in Africa or elsewhere in the world become independent, I do not want to surrender my own right to my own territory and my own identity. The hon. member for Musgrave should try to reconcile his party’s policy with these two basic points. That is precisely what the NP does.

Have the Venda not been part of South Africa up to now?

On the one hand, there is a diversity of nations in South Africa, and one cannot argue that away. If those hon. members want to adopt a policy in which this is disregarded, they will see conflict in South Africa. That is the one side of the matter. The other side of the matter—in this connection I can agree with the hon. member—is that one does not want to hurt people in handling the situation where nations come into contact with one another. One does not want to discriminate and one does not want to wound people. These are the principal objections which any political party in South Africa seeks to achieve, irrespective of whether they are White or Black. This is precisely what we are trying to achieve by means of the Bill.

The hon. member for Musgrave said that the NP wants to fragment South Africa, but his statement is not borne out by history. The hon. member did not go back far enough in the history of South Africa. He began only the other day, but one does not begin only the other day. One does not begin in 1899 or 1902; one begins much further back. By means of the Bill, the NP wants to take it back to the original source of the problem.

What about kwaZulu?

I want to point out to the hon. member that I have made a very thorough study of the history of the Venda again, from their earliest origins, so far as anything is known about them. People are given to understand that the White man, the Afrikaner or the NP are the cause and the source of all conflict in Southern Africa. However, if the hon. member would examine the history of the Venda, he would realize that there were conflicts between the Black nations long before the White man came here. The hon. member must not think conflict will cease if the NP or the White man disappears from the scene.

A second point I want to mention to the hon. member is that if he examines the history of the Venda, he will also find conflicts within the Venda community. If there are problems or conflicts within modern Venda politics today, therefore, these are as old as the Venda people itself.

I also want to point out to the hon. member that the word “fragmentation” is not appropriate, for the NP is not fragmenting Southern Africa. The place where the Venda is living, is their territory at this moment. They live there. They have been living there for years, for centuries. Therefore this is not fragmentation, but the recognition of a practical situation with which we were faced.

There is another point I want to mention. The fact that the Venda are becoming independent does not mean, after all, that we are going to build a wall of Jericho around these people and that the town or the country of the Venda is going to be in a state of siege and that we are not going to give them any water or food. That is not what it means. How can it be said that we are not giving the Venda their fair share? It is very difficult to define what a “fair share” is. After all, the granting of independence will mean that we as Whites will in fact be more accommodating towards the people of Venda, and this applies to every facet of their pattern of life: Social, economic, juridical or whatever. It does not mean, after all, that we want to strangle those people. Does not the fact that they will obtain political independence mean that they will participate in the welfare and the prosperity enjoyed by all mankind elsewhere, since complete isolation as a point of departure will never succeed? It is an absolutely fallacious argument to pretend to the outside world that the NP will impose such a state of isolation upon the Venda through this measure that they will die. The record of the NP in respect of Swaziland, Lesotho or any other country proves that we want growth in Southern Africa. It is precisely because we want that growth that we try to eliminate as many conflicts as possible. May we never see the day, but if the White man, or only the NP, were to leave this country, the clock would be turned back 150 or 200 years for this country, and then there would really be conflict.

Unfortunately, I do not have much time left, but there is something else I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave. Like those of the hon. member for Mooi River, his historic and fundamental premises are wrong. History shows me that there has never been room for me and my people in the thinking which that hon. member represents. Therefore, as the Whites have rejected them time and again, balanced, nationally-orientated Black ethnic groups in Southern Africa will also reject them as they get to know the PFP better.

Let us try that, shall we? Let us give it a go.

I can tell the hon. member for Houghton that they will reject her party completely.

Let us give it a try.

We shall not live to see the day. Our lives are too short. However, the policy of the PFP does not augur well for my people or for the Venda people.

For this reason, I cannot agree with the amendment at all. I thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for the Bill he has introduced. I personally hope that more ethnic groups in South Africa will become independent and that the Black nations of Southern Africa may test the honesty, integrity and sincerity of the National Party. I believe we would pass the test.

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the last few sentences in the speech of the hon. member for Rissik, especially where he said that if the White man were forced to leave Southern Africa, there could only be chaos in Southern Africa. I agree with him whole-heartedly. For that reason, I am very worried at the moment about what is happening in South West Africa, for what is happening in South West Africa means, in my opinion, that the Whites are being deprived of their authority in many respects and that the Whites are being exposed to great danger, exactly the same dangers as those which would arise for the Whites if the PFP ever came into power in South Africa.

I listened attentively to the very interesting speech made by the hon. member for Rissik, especially to his arguments about what the hon. member for Mooi River had said. I agree with him—I believe he is right—that Gen. Hertzog’s constitutional policy eventually brought about unity, especially among the Whites in South Africa. His first step was the Status Act, of course, and then there were the flag and the national anthem. During his term of office, the flag was flown for the first time and the national anthem was sung for the first time. Ultimately, the constitutional development culminated in the founding of the Republic. I voted against the public, but my reasons were different from those of the hon. member for Mooi River. I voted against it for strategic and economic reasons. However, the hon. member for Mooi River voted against it for emotional reasons. That is where the difference lies.

We in these benches supported the First Reading of the Bill, while the other Opposition parties opposed it without first having read the Bill. Now that we have read the Bill and listened to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech to the Second Reading stage, we are in a position to examine it objectively. Over and above this, we have had an opportunity to study the motion which came before the Venda Legislative Assembly. I want to make it clear today that we are opposed to the fragmentation of large parts of South Africa to create independent Black States. Even Dr. Verwoerd was not enthusiastic about it. If I remember correctly, he said more or less the following about Bantustans or fragmentation in April of 1959: “It is not something we would have liked to see, but it is a form of fragmentation we have to apply as a result of the pressure upon us—there is no other solution.” We were opposed to it at the time and we are still opposed to it. In our opinion, the creation of independent Black States is usually both impractical and dangerous. This has always been our standpoint. We think it is impractical to believe that 13% of the territory, producing only 2% of the national income, can accommodate and support more than 70% of our population. In other words, it is a question of non-viability.

Secondly, we believe that it is impractical to think that White South Africa will ever achieve its full greatness without the sustained support of our Black people. It is dangerous to believe that Black leaders will accept independence without more land, more economic power and more freedom to associate with other countries, even communist countries. Reference is made to this in the explanatory memorandum which has been made available to us, especially in the remarks on clause 4 in the memorandum.

Sir, I also want to be realistic. In fact, we are realistic. We have always accepted that if a State has been promised its independence and that State wants its independence, South Africa can hardly refuse to gratify its desire for independence and to keep the promises made to those people and that little State. I want to remind the members of the old United Party who are sitting in the NRP benches of the fact that about six or seven years ago we adjusted our policy as a result of representations made to the leader of the United Party by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, to the effect that when the Government has promised a nation independence, one could hardly disregard that promise. I also want to remind the hon. members of the PFP, as the hon. member for Port Natal has also done, of the Kowie Marais principles, in which it is also suggested that independence is a matter of principle to them. What is more, I want to remind both these parties of the fact that in the last few years of fragmentation of the old United Party, their leader, the Sunday Times, took the initiative and said it was high time the old United Party changed its policy and accepted the Government’s concept of Bantustans.

Those of us who had traditionally been supporters of the old UP objected to this and the policy was only changed at a later stage. In the case of Venda, there has again been a request to South Africa to grant greater freedom to them, and it is of course the policy of the South African Government to offer the Black States independence. We have the situation, therefore, that the request of Vendaland and the policy of the South African Government correspond. In the light of these circumstances it is completely illogical, in my opinion, to oppose the Bill.

I want hon. members to listen to the request made by the Prime Minister of Venda. He recently said that the Venda had always been a group with its own identity, a group of people who took pride in themselves and who wanted to preserve their own identity as a nation. Secondly, a start was made during the fifties with tribal and regional authorities, and since then, the people have been given more and more say in the things which affect them. Thirdly, since 1969, or in 1969, a territorial authority was established, and in 1973, even greater responsibility followed when Venda became a self-governing territory, with more extensive powers. Finally, with the establishment of the Legislative Assembly, a Government was elected, and an Opposition party came into being which is today known as the Independence Party.

In other words, development has taken place systematically in Vendaland. In the light of the request made by the Vendas and of the policy of the Government, we believe it would be foolish of us to oppose this Bill.

However, we believe that the Government should rather have waited for the findings of the Consolidation Committee before granting independence to Venda. We also believe that it is better to negotiate with a dependent country and its people than with an independent country. Secondly, we believe that instead of independence, there should rather be a kind of federal link between Vendaland and South Africa.

†Thirdly—and I think this is an important reason, one that we should not forget—by passing this Bill we in South Africa are surrendering control over a portion of South Africa that belongs to us at the moment.

Lastly, there is the argument about the unknown variety of mineral resources in Venda. South Africa, in giving full independence to Venda, is therefore also surrendering control over those mineral resources. Another thought is that the boundaries South Africa might have to defend one of these days is so much enlarged by the creation of yet another independent State. I do not, however, think that this is the occasion on which we should talk in this spirit. It seems to us that the Vendas want independence, that the South African Government is committed to this policy of giving independence to people who want it, and that the South African Government’s policy is to aim at the creation of a constellation of States. If that policy should succeed, then there is justification for the policy on which it has embarked in the time of Dr. Verwoerd. Therefore, while we are hesitant about fragmenting South Africa and of surrendering sovereignty over portions of South Africa, a situation has arisen, as has apparently arisen in this case, where the people concerned have been promised independence, and now want it, we do not believe that it is right for us to stand in their way, and we therefore will support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his promotion to the post of Minister. I am convinced that he will fulfil his duties in the same field, although on a different terrain, with the same efficiency and diligence he has shown in fulfilling them up to now.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred to a few aspects in quite genial terms. He said, inter alia, that even Dr. Verwoerd was not enthusiastic about independence for the Black States. The hon. member quoted from a speech Dr. Verwoerd made in 1959. We have to remember that when speeches are made and things are said, they are always said in the context of that specific time. We also have to remember that the concept of independent Black States in Southern Africa was still virtually unthinkable in 1959. In fact, it was still a new development throughout Africa.

The first Black State to gain its independence, was Ghana. Ghana gained its independence in 1956. The whole concept of the attainment of independence and of the creation of new relations between colonial States and independent States was a new concept. It was natural that one had to tread lightly when one wanted to raise that aspect. It was a new development for South Africa in particular and therefore Dr. Verwoerd approached it with great circumspection and care. From a discussion I had with him in his office, I deduced that he had a vision of the distant future. He accepted and adopted the standpoint that one should not necessarily spell out one’s whole vision of the future in public if the time was not ripe to do so. It is against this background that one should assess the speech Dr. Verwoerd made in 1959.

The hon. member for Simonstown said that White South Africa would never be able to reach its full greatness without the assistance of the Blacks. As far as that is concerned, I have no dispute with him. I am in full agreement with him. However, I want to see this aspect in conjunction with the development of any State in the world. We are seeing a new development in Europe today. There is no country in Europe which is able to develop without the aid and assistance of people of other countries. Even the development of the economically powerful Western Germany is impossible without the help and assistance of people from outside Germany or without economic co-operation. Western Germany is at present making use of the services of 2,5 million guest labourers from less developed neighbouring States. Therefore, if it is said that White South Africa will never be able to achieve its full economic greatness without the help of Blacks, I am in full agreement with that, for the greatness of White South Africa and the greatness of Black South Africa depend on the degree of co-operation which can be effected between them. The fact that there has to be political independence with economic co-operation, does not detract from this great development, the economic growth of the various States of Southern Africa. I therefore just want to emphasize that the attitude the hon. member for Simonstown advanced in this regard, does not in any way detract from the development which will now take place in terms of the Status of Venda Bill. This is a measure in terms of which a nation like Venda is being afforded the opportunity to develop as a State which will further its future development through its own initiative in accordance with its own needs. In the debate we are conducting here today, we have a conflict of philosophies. Actually there are three conflicting concepts we are dealing with here. We have our view as Nationalists, believing in the identity of a nation and in the right of a nation to be able to determine its own future according to its own needs and according to its initiative. Then we have the concept of the NRP as it was explained today by the hon. member for Mooi River, a concept which can in fact be regarded as being still the old colonial concept, because they adopt the standpoint that South Africa must needs be regarded as a whole. They are in favour of the confederation concept in order to prevent the Whites from being dominated. But does the hon. member realize that the basic concept of a political whole is retained in a confederation, and does he realize that everywhere in the world where there has been a federation or a confederation, there has necessarily been a trend towards a centralization of power? Matters never remains at the level of decentralization of power when the concept has a single political structure as its basis, but there is a trend towards centralization, until a conflict arises, as happened in the case of the federation of Canada, where one of the groups, viz. the French of Quebec, are now aiming towards breaking away from the “British dominated rest of Canada”. The basic difference is to be found in the colonial mentality of the members of the NRP.

In order to really bring home the next argument, I am now going to speak in the language of the hon. member for Musgrave.

†The hon. member for Musgrave typified the approach of what can be termed as the liberal one-worlders, those who see society as merely one human society; and who do not differentiate between peoples with separate identities, separate languages and a desire to be identified as an entity.

We do not discriminate; we accept the differences.

It is truly amazing that a person with the name of Mr. Swart and a person with the name of Mr. Van Rensburg should speak mainly in English.

Why is it amazing?

It is truly interesting to note that and then to note what the whole background of their thinking is. It is the concept of one-worlders. They do not wish to distinguish between nations. It is also interesting to note that the hon. member for Musgrave in dealing with the Status of Venda Bill had to detract from the seriousness of this important issue and speak in derogatory terms of a “spurious” independence and of an “absurd political charade”. Typical of this type of thinking is an article in the Sunday Tribune recently, an article on this very issue. There they spoke of Mphephu’s “banana republic” and thereby they try to belittle people, to be derogatory about people who have a sense of their own identity. We get this derogatory attitude, this “better than thou” attitude from people who claim to be liberal and who claim to recognize human rights, and who then cast away people who want to distinguish themselves as part of an own nation. It is truly a sorry day when people like the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Bryanston call themselves liberals and people who believe in human rights and then adopt such a derogatory attitude towards people who wish to establish their own identity.

It is only to get away from apartheid. [Interjections.]

They question the right of those people to choose to be a free nation. They question their right to say: “We wish to be equals with White South Africa in an international sphere.”

Will you still discriminate against them when they come to South Africa?

As far as I am concerned, independent people, be they from Lesotho, Venda or Europe, should be treated on a basis of ordinary human dignity. If people from any country in the world come to work in a certain category in South Africa, they are regarded as workers in a particular category and not as Blacks or Whites. It is not discrimination on the basis of race which is underlying in the principle of separate development, but categories that can be recognized on the basis of historical social differences in South Africa. We are obviously moving towards a situation where the attitudes adopted by one human being to another are changing for the better.

May I ask the hon. member why Black advocates cannot practise together with White advocates in Pretoria?

The hon. member for Hillbrow wants to know why Black advocates cannot practise together with White advocates in Pretoria … [Interjections.]

What has that to do with the Bill?

They fall in the same category.

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow put a question to the hon. member, and if other hon. members want to answer that question, what is the use of him asking the hon. member the question? The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the position of advocates in Pretoria has to be decided by the Bar of Pretoria. In other areas advocates have accepted the situation that Blacks and Whites can be included in the same association. Consequently, that has nothing to do with Government policy per se.

The hon. member for Musgrave spoke of a common South African fatherland and he said that the people of South Africa should necessarily be part of a common South African fatherland. It is not necessary to take hon. members back on the road of history, but it is a fact that South Africa, as it was known 10 or 20 years ago, was a creation of the colonial period. It was a creation of power politics in a colonial period when in 1909 the fathers of South Africa met in a national convention to create the Union of South Africa. Only English- and Afrikaans-speaking Whites of the Free State, Transvaal, the Natal colony and the Cape colony were represented there. No Blacks, Indians or Coloureds participated.

How many Blacks are participating now?

It was at the insistence of the British imperial power that it was regarded as being of vital interest, basically economic interest, that the Union of South Africa should be formed. In 1910 a contract was entered into between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people to form the Union of South Africa. At that time and even 46 years later there was no concept anywhere in Africa of Blacks participating on an equal basis with Whites in a political union. Consequently, it was through the development of history that we had to find a solution in the light of world development. When the colonies in Africa and Asia were granted their independence, colonies which were part of the power-political structure of a colonial era, we also had to consider that self-same principle of granting independence to people who had previously merely been there as part of a system which was created by the colonial structure.

What does the world say about your solution?

I am not interested in what this unfair world thinks about it. However, what I am interested in, is what reasonable people the world over think. [Interjections.]

Order! The running commentary being conducted by hon. members must now stop.

If Venda’s right to an own recognition and an own independence is decried, I ask hon. members on that side of the House what their attitude was towards a non-viable country gaining its independence where the vast majority of its “citizens” were spread over the whole world. I am referring to the State of Israel. On the strength of their burning desire for independence, they fought and shed their blood to create a State which is approximately the size of the Kruger National Park and which was not economically viable. However, its economic growth was developed with the assistance of its “citizens” spread throughout the world and of friendly States throughout the world. Because of the burning zeal of a people who wanted their independence, they have become recognized, even by Egypt today, as a country that has a right to an own recognition as a State.

If the Vha Venda today merely ask for the return of their sovereignty in a country where they had sovereignty some 80 years ago, it should be seen in the same light. They might not be economically viable as Britain is economically viable, but in co-operation with the rest of the States in Southern Africa they certainly are economically viable. They are as economically viable as Israel was in 1948. [Interjections.]

Sir, typical of the attitude of these liberal one-worlders was the attitude they displayed when the hon. member for Maitland asked the hon. member for Musgrave whether his attitude towards the independence of Venda was the same as his attitude to the independence of Lesotho was. He replied that they were only talking about the South African situation. Typically, whenever a parallel is drawn, they disregard it and revert to a situation where they can criticize according to their own likes and dislikes. The hon. member for Musgrave was obviously evading the issue. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether the citizens of Lesotho ever enjoyed the citizenship of South Africa?

The citizens of Lesotho never enjoyed the citizenship of South Africa. What can be said, however, is that the Indians of East Africa enjoyed the citizenship and held passports of the United Kingdom. [Interjections.] Yet, when they were left in the lurch by the independent countries, the countries who gained their independence from Britain, Britain refused to allow all her “citizens” to return to Britain.

They left their citizens in the lurch. However, South Africa has said that she is prepared to give the Venda’s employment opportunities and goodwill, that she is prepared to co-operate with them to develop their country. South Africa is prepared to continue co-operating with them. South Africa is not denying them any rights, but is merely transferring sovereignty to a people who want their independence, people who have in no way squabbled about the citizenship issue. They stated from the very outset that they wanted all the people of Venda to be part of Venda and that they had no quarrel on the question of citizenship. At no stage ever did any one of them quarrel on the citizenship issue. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members of the Opposition can have one of their own speakers reply in a proper speech.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue by referring to the concept of a confederation. The hon. member for Mooi River maintains that their concept is a far better solution because there is no sacrifice involved. He states that as part of their concept no single one of those participating elements will be really fully sovereign in the true sense of the word.

Why do they need to be?

Mr. Speaker, we believe in the right of every people to choose by own selection with whom they wish to cooperate, and I have no quarrel with it if the Venda people were to decide voluntarily to join and to co-operate with Lebowa, for example. I have no objection if Lebowa is prepared to go into a union with Venda. It is their own choice. They have the right to do so.

As long as it is not a union with South Africa.

If Transkei, by free choice, were to amalgamate with Lesotho it would be their own free choice to do so. However, now we have the interesting situation that when the territorial authorities were formed in Southern Africa, Venda, Lebowa and Gazankulu constituted a single territorial authority. The first one to hive off, to say they did not want to be a part of the territorial authority were Gazankulu. Then Venda and Lebowa remained. It was not very long before Lebowa said they also did not want to be part of that joint territorial authority. Consequently Lebowa hived off and left Venda by itself. We believe in the right of voluntary association and in independent countries with independent people who as equals in an international sphere can then by negotiation decide in terms of the then reigning circumstances to what extent they want to associate, co-operate, to form a federation or a confederation, or form a union. It is entirely a matter of voluntary decision.

We have that in the historical development of Europe, after the war, a war-torn Europe decided, in the early 1950s, at the instigation of the French that they should form an iron and steel agreement between the countries of Europe. This developed, and they ultimately formed the EEC, first comprising six countries and now nine. One week ago there was an election of a European Parliament consisting of 410 members of those nine member States of the European Common Market. So by voluntary association a European Parliament has now been created. The interesting thing is that even in those highly developed States, those highly articulated States of Europe, to this day no sovereignty whatsoever had been sacrificed to the European Parliament. In fact, the Council of Ministers has greater powers, to this day, than the European Parliament.

That is precisely what we propose.

We believe in voluntary decisions.

That is right.

We do not believe in people simply being lumped together into one political package because colonial history or power politics lumped us into that political package. It is on that issue that we differ fundamentally from the NRP, and even more so from the PFP. [Interjections.]

I should briefly like to refer to some of the internal aspects of Venda and its people. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Mooi River has had his turn to speak.

The hon. member for Houghton on previous occasions has been very critical of the political process of the Venda people. She has criticized the Venda elections in which the Opposition party obtained the majority of the elected members, whilst the headmen and the chiefs still formed the Government. In every country of Africa there are different concepts of democracy. In fact, the word democracy is probably the most misused word in the whole world. Take, for example, the Democratic Republic of Germany, in other words East Germany. Is that perhaps the kind of democracy that is accepted by the hon. member for Houghton. There are many countries that call themselves democracies although they are in no way democracies.

Like South Africa.

The Venda people, however, have a traditional system which was not imposed on them by us. In their system there are petty headmen who are in charge of a small group of people with whom they associate and consult. Then there are headmen in charge of the petty headmen, and they again consult, on a different level, with the petty headmen. They form a consultative body that has contact with its people. Then there are the tribal chiefs who form a third tier of government of the Venda people, and politically speaking they are of even greater significance. So whether the Venda system of chiefs, tribal chiefs and headmen is regarded by the hon. member for Houghton as a democratic system or not, is merely a question of interpretation. She might regard the system of “one man, one vote” elections in Russia as democratic, but I do not.

In Russia?

The Venda people, however, consult with their people, and to try to impose upon them a Western type of Westminster system as the only system by which their being a democracy will be judged is to wrong those people. [Interjections.] Who are we to impose a system on a people which has its own traditions and systems? We who believe in genuine human rights also recognize that a people like the Venda should be recognized and have a right to a democratic system in terms of their interpretation of the concept, and it is on that basis that I wish the Venda people every success on their path to independence, a path along which they shall continue to have our goodwill and cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River has covered such a vast tapestry of history and philosophy that it is wellnigh impossible to reply to everything he has said. I will, however, reply to one or two of the statements he made. First of all, I must say that the hon. member is obsessed with the whole idea of identity.

I am not obsessed with identity.

Yes, obsessed with identity. Unless one admits to identity and worships identity, one can have no concept of any democratic ideas whatsoever. The idea of recognizing a common humanity which recognizes but does not sanctify differences among people, has never really occurred to the hon. member.

He also spoke about Venda having its own democratic system and of it not being correct for us to try to impose on those people a Westminster or any other Western form of democracy. I wonder in which mini-council or petty council—whatever it was the hon. member referred to—regulation R.276 of 1977 was conceived? Which petty chief, I wonder, sat down and drafted regulation R.276 which enabled the Chief Minister of Venda to imprison people without trial? I wonder by which particular mini-chief or petty chief this little bit of “democracy” was first conceived? Where does the hon. member think we have been over all these years when we have watched how, in area after area, homeland after homeland, these proclamations which closely resemble the detention without trial provisions in our own law, have been adopted, one after the other, by the chiefs whom this Government happens to favour, by the people who are in power in the different homelands, and more particularly by those who have taken their independence. Are those the ordinary indigenous ideas of government which have arisen from the council that sit in Venda, Transkei or any of the other areas where these proclamations have been adopted? Let me remind the hon. member for Klip River that it was under such a proclamation that the elections of 1977 were held in Venda. It was under that proclamation that nevertheless 31 out of the 42 elected seats were in fact won by the Opposition party. It was under that proclamation that thereafter 11 elected members of the Opposition party were locked up, detained without trial and held for several months.

It was nine.

No, it was 11. Even if we make it nine, or even one, does it not occur to the hon. member for Klip River that it is not what one would call a normal democratic practice, whether it is “democracy” or just ordinary democracy, that a Government which was not elected by the people who went to the polls, should thereafter make sure that they have a majority in the Legislative Assembly by the simple expedient of using a proclamation which allows for detention without trial and locking up members of the Opposition?

Only yesterday the Select Committee on Plural Relations and Development—and we could not prevent it, although we objected to it—adopted a regulation which enables the Venda Government to declare members unseated if they do not attend meetings of the Legislative Assembly for a minimum of four days in a week. I wonder how easy it is going to be for the detained members of the Opposition to …

Order! Does that concern the decision they took in connection with the independence?

It does indeed, Sir, because this was the election in which …

But it is very general.

It was the election in which independence was being discussed, and it was lost on an ordinary count. The ordinary elected members were not the members who were putting forward a policy of independence. It is true that the Opposition party called itself the Venda Independence Party, but nevertheless the man at the head of that party, Mr. Mudau, was advocating neutrality on this particular issue. They lock up the members of the Opposition and then pass a resolution stating that if those elected members do not attend the Assembly, they will be declared unseated. I just point this out as one version of democracy as it is practised in Venda at the present time. I know from whom they learnt all that. They learnt it all, of course, from the democratic Government of the Republic of South Africa who, although they have not yet reached the stage of locking up members of the Opposition, have no doubt had this thought cross their minds occasionally.

Order! The hon. member must not take the debate into those corridors.

Very well, Sir, I shall leave that thought with the hon. members of the Government.

The hon. member told us a lot about decolonization and so on. I agree that post-war the whole concept of colonies became anathema, certainly in the Western world. From that time onwards the metropolitan powers started shedding their colonies. The hon. member has used that as an analogy with what is happening now with the Republic of South Africa and Venda. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that he considers South Africa to be a colonial power.

It was created by a colonial power.

Nevertheless, the Government has been in power now for 30 years. I presume that, if it was so anti-colonial, it would have shed the colonial powers it had, years ago. South Africa is an independent country and has every power to do so. The present Government has been in the seat of power for 30 years and yet out of the nine homelands, only three—two which are already independent and one which is in the process of becoming independent—have rid themselves of this colonial influence. Will the hon. member for Klip River explain to me how he justifies South Africa retaining colonial powers over the remaining six homelands?

We inherited the system from the colonial period.

But is it not disgraceful? The Government should shed itself of these colonial possessions.

We are not that irresponsible. The UK just withdrew itself irrespective of the chaos it left.

It is a very bad argument that the hon. member has used. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Klip River has also had his opportunity to make a speech.

The hon. member for Rissik is not here. I should have liked to have commented on his interesting anthropological speech this afternoon, but he has left the Chamber and so I do not see any point in entering into an argument with him in his absence. However, I do want to say—I hope one of his colleagues will pass it on to him— that I think that he has spoilt an interesting anthropological discourse by making silly and disparaging remarks about the Afrikaans-speaking members of the PFP. It is just possible that those people have a broader and less insular attitude than the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member is steeped in the old Verwoerdian philosophy and I want to remind him and other hon. members on that side of the House that the result of that has been to invoke the hostility of the entire Western world, the hostility of countries behind the Iron Curtain and the hostility of the Third World against South Africa. Maybe he should not remain quite as blind to tire results of policy as he has been. He ought to commend people who are able to think for themselves.

We look upon this Status of Venda Bill as the third throw in the Government’s “numbers game”. The first two throws, of course, were the Status of Transkei Act and the Status of Bophuthatswana Act I call it the “numbers game”, because it is the game that excises people by the million, in this case by half a million, from our population statistics so that in the end we shall be able to say that we have a White majority population in South Africa. As one homeland after the other takes its independence, the de jure population of the Republic decreases, because the de jure population of that homeland ceases to form part of the population statistics of the Republic. This despite the fact that the de facto population of the homeland reflects, of course, that a sizable proportion of its population is living and working permanently in the Republic of South Africa. We have already shed the Xhosa population that is in any way attached to Transkei and we have also shed the Tswana population of Bophuthatswana, not to mention, I might add, the thousands of Pedis, Ndebeles and people of other ethnic groups who in fact live inside Bophuthatswana. Something like 300 000 people of non-Tswana origin live inside Bophuthatswana.

You made that speech last year.

Well, last year there was a similar Bill before us.

She will make it next year, too, if it is necessary.

Next year, when the hon. the Minister comes along with another independent State, I shall remind him of how many people he has excised so far. I just hope that I am not going to be here long enough to find that he ends up with 4½ million people living in the Republic of South Africa. In the case of Transkei, 3 million people were affected and at least half of those lived inside South Africa and the other half who lived inside Transkei relied largely, and still do, on the earnings of migrant workers who come and work in the Republic. Of the 2 million de jure Tswana people, only 800 000 live in Bophuthatswana. They were excised immediately from the Republic’s statistics. Therefore, we have the unique situation of a country which has lost 5 million people in the space of two years. I consider that to be quite a feat. Now it is the turn of the Venda people.

I join with other hon. members in congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister on his elevation from being a petty chief to a chief. I do that quite genuinely.

Almost half a million people are affected by this legislation, because the Benbo estimate is something like 449 000 de jure people, of whom 306 000, roughly, live inside Venda, i.e. 68%, 15 000 live in other homelands and 128 000 live in the so-called White Republic. All of those, the entire population of 449 000 and not just the ones who live inside Venda, not just the 306 000, are now about to be excised from the population statistics of South Africa by the stroke of the pen of the State President when he promulgates the Status of Venda Act.

Before I continue with that, I want to say that I am reminded, looking at the map, of something else the hon. member for Klip River said in the course of his speech. He told us that he believed in freedom of association and that the independent homelands could make their own pacts and could come together with any country they wished. Am I correct in saying that? I wonder whether the hon. member has taken a good look at the map of Venda.

I know exactly where it is.

He knows exactly. He knows, of course, that there is a strip of territory between Zimbabwe Rhodesia and Venda. I have no doubt that in the 17th century when this migration took place …

In what way does it differ from Lesotho?

There was no such strip between Rhodesia and the territory which became Venda. I am quite sure they were adjacent to each other and therefore the Republic of South Africa has been very careful indeed not to allow free association between an independent Venda and …

Rubbish!

… Zimbabwe Rhodesia, which could become the independent Black Republic of Rhodesia with a majority Government which is not friendly disposed towards South Africa. They have made sure that such a Government does not have the right of free association with the independent territory which Venda is about to become. I ask the hon. member for Klip River to tell this House whether, if an independent Venda makes some sort of military or other agreement with the Marxist State of Mozambique, which is very close indeed to Venda—there is only a very small area between Venda and Mozambique—if a pact is made allowing Venda to be used as a base for military purposes, a base which could be infiltrated from Mozambique, will that free association between nations be allowed?

They will have the right to do that.

They will have the right to do that?

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when proceedings were suspended earlier this evening I was busy asking the hon. member for Klip River just how closely he had studied the map of Venda and whether he still assures this House that freedom of association will be allowed to the newly independent territory of Venda …

Just like Lesotho.

I see. So if they form any sort of pact with a Black majority Government in Zimbabwe Rhodesia, which might be headed by Mugabe, or with a Marxist Government in Mozambique, the South African Government will say that as far as it is concerned the independent territory of Venda can make any association or agreement it wants to because of freedom of association? Could I ask the hon. member whether the amount voted in the Estimates— it is quite a considerable amount this year— would still be continued with in that event? I ask this because real freedom of association is only meaningful if one does not hold any threat or any inducement over the heads of people compelling them to do or not to do certain things. I ask him to dwell on that.

I would love to reply to that but it would be contrary to the request of the Chair.

Well, I am sure the hon. member will get an opportunity during the Third Reading stage or the Committee Stage.

It was the hon. member for Klip River, together with the hon. the Deputy Minister who introduced the Bill, who said that no rights were being lost.

Yes. That is right.

The hon. Deputy Minister agrees that that is what he said. May I remind file hon. the Deputy Minister that even if no present rights are lost, there is a very definite loss of future rights as a result of the provision embodied in clause 6 of the Bill. Clause 6, the citizenship clause, states—

Clause 6(2) establishes a board which will decide on borderline cases, and clause 6(3) states that—

The important, operative word there is “existing”.

I want to point out to hon. members what has happened in the case of citizens of Transkei and Bophuthatswana in whose Status Acts exactly the same clause appeared. In the case of Bophuthatswana, as the hon. member for Musgrave has pointed out, there was an additional provision which allowed citizens of Bophuthatswana to renounce their Bophuthatswana citizenship and apply for the citizenship of another homeland, and via that vehicle they could, if accepted by that homeland, apply to Pretoria to regain their South African citizenship. I think we passed a law last year which made this provision applicable to every other Bantustan as well and that is no doubt the reason why such a provision does not appear in clause 6 of this Bill.

I now wish to focus attention on the words “existing rights”. What has happened in the case of the other two territories that have become independent? All South African citizens lost their South African citizenship and became citizens of either Bophuthatswana or Transkei if they fell into the categories under Schedule B of the respective Acts, and Schedule B of this Bill is identical to that, mutatis mutandis obviously. Having lost that citizenship right, they retained all other existing rights. What everybody was, of course, interested in was the retention of section 10(1) rights under the provisions of urban areas legislation. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that that was the bone of contention. To be in that preferential class of section 10(1) means a great deal to Africans living in the urban areas. In effect, it means that one can stay in the area if one loses one’s job. One does not have to leave the area and apply to enter it again as a contract worker. One can look around for another job in the same Administration Board district without having to apply for permission. It means that, if housing is available, one can have one’s family live with one. Even if the wife, any unmarried daughter and any son under the age of 18 do not live in the area at that time, they can, if accommodation is available, be allowed to join the family there. It means, too, that they are entitled to be put on a housing list and that they are entitled to 99-year leasehold rights should they be able to afford to take up such a leasehold. Those are the existing rights under section 10(l)(a) or (b), and those rights are protected in terms of subsection (3) of clause 6, which is the clause which deals with citizenship.

What happens if one is born after the date of independence? In that case one has no existing rights. One is then born as a noncitizen and one has no rights. Therefore, all the rights that would have accrued to one had one been born prior to the date of, for example, the independence of Transkei or Bophuthatswana or prior to the date on which this Bill is going to be promulgated, viz. the rights in terms of section 10(l)(a) of persons in the urban areas, will be lost. That means that all future generations of the citizens of independent States are going to be born as non-citizens of South Africa and they are not going to enjoy the rights which they would otherwise have enjoyed.

To hon. members sitting in this House this may mean nothing. However, I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Klip River and the hon. member for Rissik, who gave us such an interesting anthropological lecture earlier this evening, that the loss … [Interjections.] I am talking to you, Daan van der Merwe. I listened to him with great interest and now he can listen to me for five minutes.

I will.

In his interesting anthropological discourse earlier this afternoon, he failed to mention the loss of future rights to the people who are now gaining independence via the Status of Venda Bill. I am referring to the many thousands of Venda people who are living and working permanently in the RSA. Their children born after the date of promulgation of this Bill lose their rights.

I want to tell these hon. members that they should speak sometime to the people who were South African citizens and who are now citizens of the Transkei or Bophuthatswana and who are living in Soweto, Langa, Guguletu and all the other Black townships, and find out the degree of resentment those people have at finding that, when their children are born and they have to get birth certificates for them, they are registered as citizens of an independent territory. They should know, too, the degree of resentment that occurs when their children reach the age of 16 and have to take out reference books or passports in the name of another country, another territory.

They should talk to people like Dr. Motlana, who was born in Pretoria but is of Tswana origin and who was consequently unable to get a passport when he wanted to travel overseas. When one loses one’s South African citizenship and one is unable to get a South African passport, and one is provided with a passport of Bophuthatswana or Transkei, or now Venda, one finds one cannot use that passport because these countries are not recognized by any other country except by each other and the RSA. The hon. member must tell me whether that is not a deprivation of rights.

That is not the whole truth.

The full truth is that if you are very lucky you can get documents from the Department of the Interior. I hope this hon. Deputy Minister will agree that that is not a general thing. It happens only in exceptional cases that people are given travel documents. Then the country to which they are travelling still has to indicate that it is prepared to accept people on those travel documents. One loses rights if one is in an urban area and was previously a citizen of South Africa There is just no question about that at all.

That is another very important reason why we in these benches are going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. Present rights are not affected, but future rights are affected in a very material way indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state categorically to the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members of the Opposition that the legislation we are dealing with tonight does not, as she is arguing, affect opportunities relating to employment, work and such requirements as may arise with regard to housing. Nor will it affect the rights of people in the future. The hon. member is making a blunder in regard to a very basic aspect. The essence of the policy of the NP, as is also reflected in this legislation on the independence of Venda, is the harmonious coexistence of nations and people, and of individuals belonging to those nations. When, as is duly done in the Bill under discussion, it is provided in terms of the policy of the NP that all the Bavenda who are outside Venda at the moment, and people who will be outside Venda in the future, will exercise their political rights in that area where they belong, the hon. member sees in this sinister ulterior motives concerning the withholding of rights. My argument is that the hon. member has ulterior motives in saying that what this legislation amounts to is that the Government is going to place people in a position where they can adopt a hostile position towards us due to the provisions of this legislation. That is simply untrue. It is not true with regard to the existing generation of Bavenda outside Venda nor is it true with regard to future generations of Bavenda.

As in the case of Lesotho and other independent States, the Government will arrange employment opportunities and other matters in an orderly fashion and act in such a way as to promote the welfare and harmony of people and nations here.

[Inaudible.]

One thing which causes me grave concern as far as the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members opposite are concerned—including, of course, the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Musgrave—is the following. Many of us have been sitting in this House for many years. We regularly listen with attention to the speeches they make. The more one listens to the speeches they make about the relations between Whites and Blacks, as has just again been reflected in the debate on the Bill under discussion, the more one comes to the conclusion that the point is not that the Black people should really be treated well nor that the rights of Black people should be looked after, but that for a few of those hon. members—and I put this squarely to the hon. member for Houghton this evening—the aim is the inciting and arousing of emotions and feelings.

It is not our intention at all.

I appreciate what the hon. member for Houghton has just said. She has said it is not her intention. However, if it is not her intention to cause ill feeling among the various population groups, she should say it so specifically and lucidly in debates in this House that everybody can hear it. If one looks at the international onslaught against South Africa, at the onslaught against us from within the continent of Africa, one finds …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I shall come to that. If one looks at these onslaughts one finds that people all over the world make use of the same vocabulary, the same words so constantly used by hon. members of the PFP.

Order! Hon. members must confine themselves more specifically to the Bill itself as far as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing this Bill and the political …

Order! The hon. member is really getting a long way off the point.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling. I should like to depict the provisions of this Bill on the Status of Venda against the background of the wider political context in which, so I believe, we ought to view it. The hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members referred in general terms to our policy and said that this independence of Venda was our political offensive whereby to escape a dilemma which we are faced with in South Africa. They also tried to indicate—in my opinion wrongly— that the Bill before us tonight has nothing to do with the feelings, attitude, approach or attitudes of the people of Venda but that it is a measure that we are trying to force down their throats.

Secondly, all of them who have spoken thus far referred, in my opinion, in a disparaging way to the State of Venda and the Black people of Venda. When we discuss matters such as this it is not conducive to good relations between White and Black if the hon. member for Musgrave refers to so-called independent States as he did in his First Reading speech. That also applies to what the hon. member said this evening when he said in connection with independence: “Can we say that this legislation will be making people free and equal?”

Answer that question.

With reference to Venda he also referred to “so-called independent homelands”. I now want to put a question to the hon. member for Musgrave. If the Vendas ask for a specific constitutional form or structure as reflected in this Bill, why does he call it a “so-called form of independence”?

What Venda people?

The hon. member for Parktown asks “What Venda people?” Let us put it in this way. In Venda there are leaders, and that is a fact that neither they nor we can deny. Since the enactment of the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951, the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act of 1959, the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act of 1971 and the Status acts of the Transkei and Bophuthatswana, a constitutional structure has been created which cannot be undone.

The leaders in question have one-third of the votes.

The hon. member for Parktown must listen carefully now. On the basis of that A constitutional framework for the Black States, political leaders came to the fore. In the State of Venda, as in the other States, there are leaders in economic, educational and religious fields. They are people who have lived there all their lives and also people who have lived outside the States and later returned there. They are people who are leaders in the true sense of the word.

Those who have gone to jail or the others?

I want to put a question to the hon. member for Parktown. Are only those Black leaders in South Africa that clash with the law, true leaders? The hon. member for Houghton—and this is very relevant here—has on many occasions referred to the “sophisticated, well-educated Blacks”. She has also often referred to “the true leaders”. To her I just want to say that in this case we are in fact dealing with true leaders, and if the hon. members of the Opposition do not want to regard those people as true leaders, leaders in terms of that constitutional dispensation that has come to the fore, I cannot help them.

There are many people among the leaders of Black States with high educational qualifications. The majority of them are, in my opinion, refined people, developed people. Is it fair to refer to those people in such a negative and disparaging way as those hon. members do here? Is it fair to refer the territory of those people as a so-called independent homeland”? Is it fair of the hon. member for Musgrave to say here that we, as the Government, are telling the Vendas: “You are being denied your rights and are poor. You will be discriminated against and will have no political rights. Your aspirations cannot be met?”

Is it true or is it not true?

The hon. member said that here this evening. It is not merely an untruth. It is a shameful untruth.

It is quite true and you know it.

It is shameful to tell those people this kind of thing because it is not true.

It is true.

In a short time I shall come back to this whole issue of human relations. When dealing with measures such as these it befits hon. members of this House to show respect to peoples and leaders so that we do not slight those people in a very dangerous field, namely the field of their own self-concept, the field of human dignity, about which they have so much to say. Is it strange to them that a leader of a Black State like Chief Buthelezi expresses himself so bitterly against the liberals in South Africa? Is it so strange to them that not even the leader whom the hon. member for Houghton referred to in this debate this evening, Dr. Motlana, is very taken up with what the PFP offers as an alternative recipe for the solution of South Africa’s constitutional problems, as is now being envisaged with the independence of Venda? I want to make a very serious appeal to them—and I do not want to become involved in a dispute with them by putting them in a humiliating light in contrast to us—but I do think they must just use their common sense and see that we in South Africa are saddled with major problems and their contribution is nil. The independence of Venda represents the tip of the pyramid of aspirations of the Venda, whether the PFP likes it or not. In passing, I want to ask them: If they say that the majority of the Venda does not want independence, who are they and who are we to tell the so-called minority in Venda what and how they should think? Do they think that the Venda have not discussed the matter among themselves? Whether they like the leaders or not, do they not think that in the case of Bophuthatswana, for example, there was a continuing discussion among the political leaders concerning the issue of independence? Do they not think that in the case of Transkei, a continuing discussion took place in the inner circles of the Black leaders concerning the question of independence? I want to ask the hon. member for Parktown whether he believes that we forced independence down the throats of the people of Venda or does the hon. member believe that it was a spontaneous …

Why then do you want to put all those people in gaol?

The hon. member for Parktown is now referring to certain practical steps taken, not by us, but by the Venda leaders themselves. [Interjections.] If the hon. members listened carefully to what Mr. Andrew Young said in the UN recently with regard to political prisoners, they will see that the matter they raised with regard to Venda is a universal phenomenon throughout the world. Why do they say this in a disparaging way? If the Government of the Black State which becomes independent takes certain steps relating to order in their country, then it is their right to do so. We do not arregate to ourselves the right to tell those people that what they are doing is inferior and that what they have done classifies them as people who are undemocratic.

Then I want to say to the hon. member for Bryanston that we live in Africa and everything—politics, the economy, the social structure and religion—has a distinctive character and form of expression among the people, nations and leaders of Africa. The same people in the OAU who drew up the declaration for the States in Africa that became independent are wrestling with problems in the political sphere just as Venda wrestled with certain problems and will again do so in the future.

In discussing the independence of Venda it must be borne in mind that every advantage in life has a disadvantage and that every disadvantage has an advantage. Whether it is our political system that is established in Venda or the political system of the PFP, it will entail disadvantages and inherent tensions. Do the members of the PFP imagine that all the leaders and people in Venda would have been satisfied if the PFP’s political recipe had been made applicable in Venda? Surely that is too ridiculous to be true. Now I ask the hon. members of the PFP what they would have told the leaders who did not like the PFP’s political recipe? Would they have put those leaders in gaol or would they have used compulsion and told those people that they were not allowed to think or feel as they wished and that the political idea that they expressed was totally unacceptable to the PFP? We are dealing with realities and one of those realities is that as far as the Black States in South Africa are concerned, we are on a constitutional road which no future Government in South Africa, whatever it may be will ever be able to change. The step the Venda people has taken is an irrevocable one, just as irrevocable as the step taken by the Tswana people and the Transkeian people. I think it was the hon. member for Mooi River who asked whether the end had been reached. I want to say that the Government’s view of the eventual position in Southern Africa is not that the present process of the sovereign independence of Venda is the end of the road. Once independent, the State of Venda will in future have to decide for itself what it want to do in the overall Southern African constitutional context in which it finds itself.

Looking at the overall Southern African set-up—in this regard we must also look at the independence of Venda—we see that we are dealing with a total socio-economic problem in Southern Africa. We are dealing with a conflict of ideologies in Southern Africa. As far as the Venda people are concerned, as in the case of all the other Black peoples, we are dealing with people in a situation which one would be able to describe in many respects as a revolutionary experience. What we have here is a revolution of awakening aspirations among the people of Venda as well. We are dealing with a revolution of cultural conflict, a clash of cultural elements in the political field, a clash of views in our political system and in our democratic institution, a clash of views in the economic sphere, in the social sphere and in every other imaginable sphere. We are dealing with the people of the Venda nation who are already very far advanced in their development in all these fields. We are dealing with people who are at a certain phase of development. We must approach the problem of the independence or otherwise of these States from that point of view as well. If we look at it from that point of view, then I think that we shall simply have a better understanding of it than the Opposition displayed here today.

I want to say to the hon. members of the Opposition that it is true that every political policy in South Africa contains an element of confrontation. We shall not say nor seek to maintain that our own political recipe as a whole as we have embodied it in this Bill, does not contain an element of confrontation. What White political party’s or Black political party’s solution, or what Black political school of thought or White political school of thought does not contain potential for confrontation?

[Inaudible.]

I want to say to the hon. member for Green Point that if one analyses clinically any problem in South Africa, for example the problem with regard to independence or otherwise, one will see that it in fact contains an element of despair, in the sense that one asks oneself how on earth one is to approach that problem and whether it can be fully solved. This is best illustrated, in the case of Venda as well, by the tremendous complexity of the social problem, the problems with regard to economic development and the pressing need for economic development. We do not deny this. We have experienced this together with the people of Venda over all the many years that we have been helping them with administration in all the economic spheres. We have experienced this together with these people on the road to political maturity. We are therefore aware of the problems involved. However, we must choose between ideals of coexistence and the capitulation syndrome of the Opposition. If we, together with the people of Venda, were to choose between the capitulation syndrome and our ideals, we should choose our ideals. Together with the people of Venda we are moving forward on the path of idealistic coexistence here in Southern Africa.

What choices do the Vendas have?

Together with the people of Venda, we are facing up to the problems in the economic sphere, the social sphere and every other sphere. Together with the people of Venda we are directly confronting the communist ideology which is creeping up on Africa. Together with the people of Venda we shall reject the political philosophies of hon. members of the Opposition. I want to tell them that they must mention the Black leaders in South Africa that accept the political solution the PFP offers them. There are no such people. There may be people who would accept their recipe and solution if it were offered to them in such a way that it amounted to nothing but total capitulation. The PFP cannot deny that. However, they have to deny it in this House to afford credibility to the alternative they put forward. Is it fair, then, that we have to try to put forward that recipe to these people? If a nation states, of its own accord, that it wants to follow a certain path, it is … [Interjections.]

Ninety per cent of South Africans are opposed to your policies.

We try, and I myself try, in all humility, to listen to and read what the leaders in Africa say about. South Africa. I try to read what the UN says about the concept of the independence of Black States. I try to read what ammunition is used against us in the international sphere on the question of independence. If those people seek to oppose us they must not do so in such a way as to place the whole of Southern Africa in a greater dilemma than we are already in in the council chambers of the world. I ask them, too, to respect those Black leaders and Black people that differ from them.

I should like to discuss one aspect of the independence of Venda. This evening I want to give the hon. members of the Opposition something they could think about. This afternoon the hon. member for Klip River made a very effective speech about the equal co-existence of peoples in Southern Africa. One of the matters giving rise to concern among the members of the Opposition at present and I can see it as clearly as daylight—is that when we discuss matters such as this, the NP does not dig in its heels either. We believe that if one wants to stay upright, one must be able to move one’s feet. The NP has already moved its feet a little in a variety of fields and the Opposition does not like it. They like to show everyone that the NP is following disastrous old ways and they try to show the people that those old ways entail denial of human rights and discrimination towards Black people. There are very few things in South Africa that have generated as much change as the independence of the Black states. I want to point out to the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Bryanston that there are very few things in Southern Africa that have generated as many changes in a variety of fields here as this very independence of the Black states. In one sphere, in the sphere of the recognition of the rights of people, in the sphere of the equal coexistence of people, I believe that the independence of Venda, like the independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana, will have far-reaching implications for the future.

Our policy entails the equal coexistence of people, and our policy implies, therefore, that we as the White nation, and the Black nations living alongside us here, will conduct our-selves in such a way in our meeting with each other that we shall so respect one anothers’ human dignity as to give rise to and generate the equal coexistence of people. I am convinced that when we consider our continued survival in Africa and in the world, we must consider the concept of human dignity. When we look at the standpoint of the OAU and when we look at the preamble of the constitution of the OAU, we see these words: Freedom, equality, justice and dignity are essential elements for satisfying the lawful aspirations of Black people. We associate ourselves with that preamble of the constitution of the OAU. When we look at the Lusaka Manifesto, drawn up by 14 states of mid- and central Africa on 16 April 1969, we read the following—

We on this side of the House say in reply to that that with the independence of Venda we do stand by this article, viz. article 2 of the Lusaka Manifesto, namely that we respect the human dignity of people and that we regard White and Black people in South Africa as people who have equal rights in this subcontinent of Southern Africa.

We believe, and we have embodied this belief in this legislation, that we must take the political tension out of the White/Black situation in South Africa. I believe that with the independence of Venda, as with the independence of the other states, we as a Government will, on the road ahead, reach a point at which the majority of Black people, and perhaps all, will realize that the policy of the liberation of peoples implies, in practice, the equal coexistence of people. They will realize that this involves the full recognition of the human dignity of people. In the future we in South Africa, as we have often spelt it out, will be effecting change. We seek to eliminate more and more factors that could cause tension and problems among those people. This applies to the Venda as well. Along with the process of independence of these Black people, the idea will begin to take root among our people to a growing extent that independence and our policy cannot, may not and will never in all eternity imply unequal coexistence of people. It cannot, may not and will never mean that people will be discriminated against. It cannot, will not and may not mean that one group of people will be in a superior position while another people is in an inferior position. This is the crux of the matter, from the political terrain to the economic terrain and ultimately to the social terrain. This, then, is what this independence of Venda entails.

At the moment there are 95 000 Black children at school in Venda. More than 11 000 of them attend secondary schools, while 2 262 of them are in standard eight or higher. In the light of this I maintain that this measure dealing with coexistence between ourselves and an independent Venda also takes into account the emotions of young, developing Black people and also their aspirations and needs. Many of these youthful Blacks in Venda are going through an emotional struggle, due to practical experiences which they, in my humble opinion, have experienced in a negative way. I believe that we shall be able to live down this unfortunate situation of misunderstanding among people in the future. To the youth of Venda we say that we shall all develop Southern Africa together, with Venda as an independent state. We shall respect one anothers’ dignity, rights, privileges in the territory of each, and one anothers’ opportunities.

I believe that we in Southern Africa are going to succeed, on the basis of the independence of Venda and that of other states to follow, in cultivating a Southern African loyalty, a loyalty towards that in Southern Africa which is important to all of us and which belongs to all of us.

Our policy does not exclude the fact that the wealth of Southern Africa will belong jointly to all these peoples. Nor does our policy exclude joint possession and use of the economic infrastructure of Southern Africa by all of us. Therefore our policy does not exclude the fact that in total, we have here an economic community that we want to experience and realize after the independence of Venda as well.

Nor does our policy exclude the political community of interests prevailing in Southern Africa. This is not something we can deny by means of this legislation. Indeed, the whole philosophy of the NP with regard to Southern Africa provides that we can join hands on the road ahead with respect for one anothers’ political rights. This common South Africanism, if we could describe it as such, embodies loyalty to this common region. It embodies the loyalty to things that we believe in, the Black people as well. It embodies loyalty to a capitalistic economic system which also forms part of their way of thinking. It embodies loyalty to political institutions that we value. It embodies democracy in the way in which the people want to express it themselves and not the way that we try to force down their throats. We simply do not believe in that. Southern Africa also embraces a loyalty to that which is important to all of us to fight for in the future. Southern Africa embraces, too, a common loyalty to what lives in the soul of all of us, in the soul of the Government and, I believe the Opposition as well, viz. the Christian religion as a guarantee and bulwark against the Communists and their onslaught on Southern Africa.

I believe that the independence of Venda will demonstrate coexistence with those people in accordance with our recipe, the totality of a common South Africanism in the future, so clearly, that all of us will develop a respect for one another, as Christian people who believe in an economic capitalist philosophy and reject Communist ideology, that we shall hold one anothers’ hands and will be able to live in peace and harmony with mutual respect in Southern Africa. We want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his fine promotion. Together with him and other members of the Cabinet we shall extend the hand of friendship to all the people of Venda; to its political leaders, its economic leaders, its professional people, its educational leaders and also to those people of Venda who are not leaders and are perhaps at a lower level of society. We say to them that we in Southern Africa enter the future on the basis of equal coexistence, mutual respect, understanding for one another and the acceptance of one anothers’ human dignity. I believe that in our idealism lies our survival, our coexistence and everything that is dear to us in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think that if we were to have a prize in this House for the hon. member who speaks more words to the minute than any hon. member, the hon. member for Innesdal would certainly take the prize. [Interjections.] I should like to remind him of what the hon. member for Mooi River said in a previous debate. He said that patriotism was the last resort of the scoundrel. That hon. member started his speech today by once again talking about the total onslaught on South Africa. He talked about the words spoken in Opposition benches as being words that were in fact supplied to them by the outside world or that the outside world picked up our words and that it was all very unpatriotic.

I want to ask that hon. member, if we in the Opposition benches cannot criticize the policies of this Government in this House, where else can we do so? Is this not the very place where, when we disagree, it is our duty to express that disagreement? What does he want us to do? Does he want us to be like hon. members on that side of the House, a lot of “jabroers”? It is an absolutely ridiculous concept.

Hon. “jabroers”.

Hon. “jabroers”, yes.

The other thing that the hon. member talked about was the Lusaka statement of the Organization for Africa Unity in 1969. He particularly mentioned the aspect of human dignity. He suggested that, in recognizing the desire of the people of Venda to be independent, we were recognizing human dignity. To an extent he is right. However, I do wish that the NP would consider human dignity in this very South Africa that we are all a part of. Why can they only recognize human dignity by giving independence? Why do they not recognize human dignity by taking discrimination off the Statute Books of South Africa?

Oh, shut up.

And the same to that hon. member. [Interjections.] I want to congratulate, or perhaps commiserate with the hon. the Deputy Minister who is shortly to be an hon. Minister. I want to commiserate with him because he is becoming a member of the Cabinet for the first time at a stage when the NP has reached the zenith of its power. From here on the road only leads downward. [Interjections.] I want to suggest to that hon. the Minister to be that he must be careful that on that road downward he too does not get knocked off his bicycle. [Interjections.] There was a question asked by the hon. member for Maitland, who is unfortunately not here this evening. He asked the official Opposition a question in regard to the independence granted to Lesotho by the British Government and seemed to think that this was a parallel to the granting of independence to Venda.

Now, there is a very, very specific difference, and that is that when Lesotho was granted its independence every single citizen who lived in South Africa or in Lesotho could make up his own mind about where he wanted to retain his citizenship. All the Basutho who lived in South Africa were not forced to become citizens of Lesotho. In fact they did not choose to become citizens of Lesotho. That is why they are still in this country. They were given a real choice. However, that choice is not being given by this Government to the citizens of Venda, not in any shape or form. [Interjections.]

Let us now look at this Status of Venda Bill, which is in front of us this evening. I should like to look at it from two points of view. The first is the point of view of how it affects the Black people of South Africa. Now, we have to look at their desire for independence in the light of what the alternative is. I could only agree with them if they were to consider that the alternative—in the words of somebody else—is “too ghastly to contemplate”. Look at the situation in which these people have to live within White South Africa. They are hedged around with discrimination. Everywhere they turn they find that there are discriminatory laws which prevent their true participation in the free enterprise economy, something which we are supposed to represent in South Africa. I say “supposed to represent” advisedly. Secondly, do they receive any benefits from that free enterprise society? Of course not. They do not receive the benefits of the society in anywhere near the same shape or form as White people of South Africa receive these benefits. They are not allowed, for instance, to operate their businesses within a central business district where the big majority of buying and selling is carried on in South Africa, where the Whites, the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians are all allowed to shop, where they are all allowed to spend their money. However, they are certainly not allowed to open a shop there. They are not allowed to participate in any shape or form in that area in the free enterprise economy. The same applies to a lot of the industrial areas. They are not allowed to own their businesses within those areas. Therefore, hon. members opposite should not try to tell us that they are really participating.

Have they any political say within South Africa at all? No, they have not. There is a noticeable leg missing in the constitutional proposals of the NP for South Africa outside the homelands, where, as far as the draft Constitution of the NP is concerned, they are not given any say, not any real political say in any shape or form. There are approximately 10 million of them, and they are totally ignored. As I have told the hon. member for Innesdal, they are unable to live with a political say, with participation in the free enterprise economic system. They are not able to live in dignity and harmony either. This is the choice that they are given on the one hand. On the other hand they are given the choice of freedom from discrimination, freedom to run their lives and their affairs in their own way, freedom to have a real political say and to educate their children in the way that they want to educate them, and in the language of their own choice, and freedom to use the official language of their own choice. In other words, what they are being offered is total discrimination on the one hand as compared with freedom on the other hand. Can we really blame them at all, therefore, for coming to the NP Government and saying that they want their independence? If I were a Black man of Venda, faced with the only choices they have presented to them, I certainly would opt for independence as well.

There is another aspect that has not, as yet, been mentioned in this debate at all, and that is the position of the White people. We must not forget that a question like this is always a two-edged sword. It affects the Blacks, but it also affects the Whites, and I who live on the borders of Transkei know of some of the tragedies that can occur in White lives because of the very situation that is being perpetuated and advanced by measures such as the Bill before us. Let us take South Africa, perhaps in Umtata, in Bophuthatswana or in Venda. I was at school with such people. I have known them all my life and I know them well. These people are South Africans, born and bred. They fought, or their fathers fought, for South Africa in the wars. They were educated in South Africa, they had their university education in South Africa and some of them have been in businesses that have been in existence for generations. I know of businesses in the Transkei that have been in existence for over 100 years. Then, suddenly, at the stroke of a pen of that Government, they find that they are living in a foreign land, although they are still living where they have always lived. They are no longer citizens of the country in which they have always lived. What sort of a position do they find themselves in?

Are they proud to be Xhosas?

Are they proud to be Xhosas? I am not talking about Xhosas. I am talking about White South Africans who are born and bred in Transkei or in any other independent homeland. [Interjections.] They and their positions have been sacrificed, and for what cause? They have been sacrificed in the cause of the disunification of South Africa. In the history books we learn of the unification of Italy and other countries. One day when historians write the present age into the history books, however, they will speak of the disunification of South Africa that took place under this Government.

Now I come to one of the worst aspects as far as the Whites are concerned, and let me again use Transkei as an example. Transkei has been independent for nearly three years now, and yet there is still R100 million of White-owned property to be bought out. Yet what sort of money is this Government making available? I think the total in the budget for this year was some R56 million. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know the figure better than I do. I think it was R56 million that has been allocated for buying out White property in homelands or independent homelands. How far is that going to get us? Just think of Transkei, which has been independent for three years now. In the case of Transkei there is still R100 million that has to be spent. Let us say that these people are lucky and get 20% of the total funds allocated, and in my view they would be very lucky indeed to get 20%. 20% would, however, only represent R11 million. At that rate it is going to take nine years to buy out all the land, giving us a total of 12 years since independence before all the land is bought out. The Whites there come and ask if we cannot please do something because life is being made very unpleasant for them. They ask us to do so because the reflections automatically cast upon them by the Black Transkeians is that they are only there because they do not want to be bought out because they want to stay and profiteer, exploiting the Black man. It is alleged that they are not prepared to hand over their property to the Blacks. So they have that sort of discrimination in reverse practised against them …

You are destroying your own argument.

I do not at all agree that I am destroying my own argument. I have had this sort of argument with the hon. the Deputy Minister before. These people in Transkei who still have not been bought out, and every White person living in a homeland which is likely to become independent, must ask themselves when the Government is going to keep its promise that they will buy out their properties. This is what happens when South Africa is fragmented. The Government cannot afford the folly of their own policy. They cannot afford to buy these people out.

We in these benches believe that there should be another alternative offered to the people of Venda. Before they finally take the road to independence they could be offered a real alternative. The alternative which the Government offers them is not an alternative at all. They should be offered the alternative of staying within the framework of the Republic of South Africa, of remaining in a confederal link with South Africa, in which case from the point of view of the judicial system and every other point of view they can remain part of an overall economy of a country which through confederation could become one of the leading trading nations of the world. But with fragmentation this is going to wither. Fragmentation is not the answer to South Africa’s problems in any shape or form. But a confederation of States is, States working together towards common objectives, with everybody having real political say, yet with each group’s particular identity protected, and with nobody interfering with the rights of those groups. This is the type of situation that we envisage for South Africa.

Sir, it gives me very great pleasure to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mooi River and to indicate that we certainly cannot agree with the sort of provisions that are contained in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member for Innesdal, who had as much to say as anybody possibly could in half an hour, there is probably very little more to be said from that side of the House.

I want to change the tenor of this debate towards Venda itself rather than debating the theory of homelands. It has been very interesting for me to note the course of this debate, because it differs from the course of the earlier debates on the independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana. This time there has as yet been no talk at all about the viability of Venda. Nobody has said that Venda is a viable country or could be a viable country, because they know that Venda cannot be a viable country in its own right. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to talk about interdependence and we would like to hear more about this because this is a great change in NP policy. It is something we have not heard about before. It is a great change in direction.

I want to make an accusation against hon. members on the other side of the House when it comes to the granting of independence. I believe the NP are the worst of colonialists. They are the people who have not lived up to their responsibilities before handing over power to a homeland which is to become independent. They are the people who have not done things for the country they are now making independent. I think one should look at Venda’s resources and what it has in terms of infrastructure. I am going to use as a basis for my argument a document which is now nearly three years old, but I think this document gives a very clear indication of what Venda is all about. I am referring to the Benbo economic review on Venda, and I want to quote from a chapter entitled “Economic obstacles”. It says, inter alia—

The more direct obstacles confronting Venda can be detailed as follows:

Is this to be an independent country? Let us look at the question of communications for example. What sort of railway system does Venda have? Railways are usually the basis of any developed country, or a country that aspires to any sort of viability. It has 13 km of railways. I am not for one moment arguing that Lesotho is a viable country on its own. We have never said so, or even pretended that it is.

But it is independent.

It is independent, but that is an accident of history. In this Parliament we are discussing something on which we can make a decision. We can make no decision on Lesotho. We do not have the opportunity to do so, but we do have an opportunity of making a decision on Venda. What I want to point out, however, is that we are making a very grave error indeed.

Let us look at communications systems. Normally any country that aspires to viability would have to have a railway system. At the moment Venda has 13 km of railways, which just happen to pass through Venda and have no value at all as far as the infrastructure of Venda is concerned.

What about roads? At the end of 1976 Venda had 126 km of tarred roads in toto, namely the road from Louis Trichardt to Sibasa and then on to Punda Milia in the Kruger National Park, and the road which branches off from the Louis Trichardt-Messina road and leads to Punda Milia, a road which has been built for tourists, not for the benefit of Venda and its infrastructure.

Can they not use the road?

Of course they can use the road, but the question I want to ask, is what they will use it for. What are they going to do with it? They are going to use it to get out of the country so that they can make a living elsewhere. It is interesting that according to this document 82% of the total gross national income of Venda was earned in the White area and not in Venda itself. Is this a sound basis for an independent country? We have heard glowing accounts from hon. members on that side of the House about how the people of Venda can use this country to fulfil their ambitions and their ideals and build up their pride in their nation.

I just want to say one thing about that. There have been Black people who have said to me: “Mr. Lorimer, you Whites will never be able to tell us that a town like Johannesburg does not partly belong to us. We, too, are proud of what has been built in Johannesburg, because we have participated in building them; we are proud of the goldmines because we have helped to dig them; we are proud of the industries because we have helped to manufacture things.” One thing hon. members on that side of the House do not accept and cannot understand is that Black people are also proud to be South Africans. They are so tied up in fright in their narrow little field of sectionalism … [Interjections …] that they are too petrified to believe that other people can have pride in being South Africans in the broader sense of the word …

They do not trust you.

… because their narrow sectionalism does not allow them to see it. [Interjections] I find it fascinating to hear the sort of comment that is made by hon. members on that side of the House. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says: “They do not trust you.” What has that got to do with the argument?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Stilfontein is making his usual intellectual contribution to the proceedings. However, I think we should get back to the question of the Bill before us. What are the people of Venda going to do? Largely they are going to be peasant farmers because there is very little else in Venda apart from peasant farming. There are certain mineral resources and there are deposits of coking coal up around the Kruger National Park area. It is, however, interesting to look at the sort of industrial development one has seen in Venda in recent years. At the end of 1976 this document reported that up to 30 September 1976 the EDC had established one industry, the Sibasa Bakery. Several more have since been established, and I think I am right in saying that there is now a general store and a bank. We are getting on. We are getting towards viability, or are we?

It is a one-horse town.

Again I make the point that the argument from the other side of the House has changed completely since the argument about Transkei or Bophuthatswana, because there is no possibility at all that Venda could ever be anything but dependent upon South Africa. What this Government is trying to do is to retain the economic control of Black people. It believes that with this political solution it will be able to retain economic control and keep people sweet, I believe that these people are, however, going to be economic slaves to South Africa, and in the long run those slaves will not be happy with their situation. Hon. members on the other side of the House are creating rods for their own backs for the future. We are creating a monster because we are creating a Southern Africa that is so fragmented that it will not be able to stand together. In this respect I should like to quote the words of the hon. the Minister, who is not with us at the present time. He said that what we must try to do in South Africa is build a common loyalty, he was talking about this Bill when he said that. I do not know what he meant by that. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply will be able to answer that because we finally did squeeze out of him the reply that what they wanted was to build a common loyalty to Southern Africa. How are we going to do that? One of the basic philosophies of this party is that if in one country there are separate institutions for separate countries growing side by side with different needs and different aspirations, one has a conflict situation, and that is what this Government is creating. It is a conflict situation. I ask hon. members on the other side who do not agree with what I say to seriously consider my words, because if we ever reach the point— which I doubt—of having something like 11 independent homelands throughout South Africa, as we now know it…

There are nine.

Yes, there are nine, but there is also the Swazi one and the other two. In fact, there are 12 separate countries. What sort of common loyalty can those countries have, because we have heard a great deal from the hon. the Prime Minister about a constellation of States? It is an attractive idea to have a constellation of States in Southern Africa standing firm against all in the rest of the world who do not like us very much, but are we being realistic about this? Is there any possibility that this could happen.

Definitely yes.

Could this possibly happen when there is Lesotho which dislikes us and which, as another hon. member has said, is one of the leading members of the OAU which dislikes us intensely? Are they going to be prepared to work with us, with a common loyalty towards this constellation of States? What about Mozambique, a Marxist country? Is Mozambique going to stand side by side with us, with a common loyalty to Southern Africa?

No.

Now we are bing selective because that hon. member says “No.” So Mozambique is out but Lesotho is in. Am I correct in saying so? Is Lesotho in? I ask hon. members whether Lesotho is going to be one of the members of the constellation of Southern African States.

Yes, if they choose to be.

Thank you. The hon. member for Innesdal has replied. He has used the phrase that I wanted him to use, because the words he chose were “if they choose to”. And will they choose to?

We cannot force them.

Of course we cannot force them to, and I can tell that hon. member that as long as this Government is in power, with its racialistic policies, they will not choose to come into any sort of constellation that has anything to do with us. The hon. member for Mooi River developed this theme. What about Botswana? Is Transkei, who broke off diplomatic relations with us, going to enter this constellation of Southern African States? I shall tell the hon. member how long it will stay in. It will only stay in as long as we pay it enough money to keep its economy going. The same applies to Bophuthatswana, because it will also enter this constellation of Southern African States only as long as we pay it enough money and make it worth its while to do so. We shall also be paying for Venda. [Interjections.] When Venda becomes independent it, too, will only be favourably disposed towards us if we pay for it, and on what basis are we paying for it? Are we giving them aid, as we are giving to Transkei at the moment, aid that is becoming more and more of a financial millstone around our neck? The Government’s policy is to buy friends.

Must we stop that aid?

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member over there does not agree with me at all. He does not think that we are buying friends. [Interjections.] I challenge that hon. member to answer the following question. If the South African Government does not give one cent to Transkei next year, does the hon. member think Transkei will remain our friend?

We are not friends now.

Too true. It is difficult enough to keep Transkei friendly with the money that we are paying. Let us imagine our having as many homelands independent as will accept independence. How much is that going to cost?

You are belittling all those people.

I am not belittling them at all. I am doing exactly the opposite. I am telling them that they are South Africans and should be proud to be South Africans, and if that is belittling them …

You are an oppressor.

The hon. member for Innesdal says I am an oppressor. That is one of the most “bitterbek” remarks that I have ever heard. [Interjections.] All I can say to that hon. member is that he is a “bitterbek”. He must put that philosophy behind him and try to have faith in the future of our country as a whole. It is fear that rules members of the NP at the moment. They fear other South Africans, but perhaps, because of their policy, they have good cause to fear them. It is their policy to produce a political solution which will hive off as many Black people as possible in the shortest possible time. In so doing they are the true colonialists, because they are going to have colonial control over those Black States, and this is, in fact, what they intend. They want to have colonial control, but if one looks at the colonial heritage that they leave behind in these Black States, one finds that it does not include infrastructure. It does not even include our democratic heritage, because Venda has been forced into being controlled by a minority Government which is in power because it had the support of the White NP Government of South Africa.

It includes Proclamation No. 276.

Proclamation No. 276 is another example of the democratic heritage that we are giving to Venda in making it independent, a proclamation dealing with detention without trial. [Interjections.] Are hon. members on that side of the House proud of what they are doing? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member is roaming far and wide now.

Venda is a very long way away, Sir.

Order! I know Venda is a very long way away, but owing to the scarcity of petrol the hon. member must not roam so far and wide.

In concluding my speech, I should like to tell hon. members on that side of the House that when the history of this epoch is written, they will go down in those history books as the economic oppressors of the small countries they are creating to become the economic slaves of so-called White South Africa. [Interjections.] I shall continue to call it so-called White South Africa, because anybody who walks down any street in any town, city or village in South Africa will not really believe anybody who calls it White South Africa. It is a South Africa for all races, a South Africa of Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and it is a South Africa for people who are proud to be South Africans. Hon. members on that side of the House cannot understand that sort of pride. They only believe in their own sectional pride. They cannot believe in the patriotism based on a real South Africanism and which includes all our people. [Interjections.] I can only suggest to hon. members on that side of the House that they aspire to that sort of patriotism.

Mr. Speaker, … [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon. members to confine themselves to the Bill from now on. The hon. member may proceed.

… I should like to refer to one or two remarks made by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

The hon. member for Moscow.

He quoted a few extracts from the economic …

Order! What did the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark say?

I referred to the hon. member as “the hon. member for Moscow”.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about the economic prospects of this young people on its road to independence. He spoke about an economic review by Benbo compiled three years ago. He was therefore quoting from a three-year-old survey and wants this House to accept those statistics. I, too, read that report. I, too, went through it and found in it a very fine and positive attitude towards this young people. I read in it that the Bavenda are a proud people that hold fast to their traditions and are proud to be an autonomous people. The hon. member then went on to make disparaging remarks about the Government of Transkei. I think he owes it to that Government to withdraw those words.

The hon. member for East London North also made a few remarks. He referred, inter alia, to the hon. member for Innesdal who supposedly argued with him because the official Opposition and the NRP criticized the Government. We do not deny those parties the right to criticize the Government. They can do so if they feel like it. It is just that they must do so in a responsible way.

When a young people like the Bavenda plan their future, I do not think it is appropriate for an Opposition party to undermine them in this House as they do. When a people receives its independence and gives birth to sovereign independence, hon. members on this side of the House salute that people. I am grateful that hon. members on this side of the House can congratulate that people and wish them all of the best for the future. That is more than the official Opposition and the NRP are prepared to do. They want to suppress the inherent and God-given urge in every nation to be an autonomous nation, among these people. The official Opposition in particular, as an inferior and impotent little party with virtually no support among the voting public, arrogate to themselves and reserve the right to want to decide on the freedom and independence of a people. They want to withhold from that people their freedom and independence. Venda is going to become independent. The Government is going to give effect to the wishes of the people of Venda. A people asks for independence. The Opposition says “no” to that people. One can argue and say that this attitude will, after all, not have an influence on the freedom or otherwise of a new people. Venda is in any event going to become independent. However, the negative ripple effect which hon. members of the Opposition are going to achieve by this is far-reaching. I therefore believe it is appropriate to give attention to this.

Both the official Opposition and the NRP are trying to put the long-expected and long-cherished independence of the Bavenda in a negative light in the outside world. They are intentionally breaking down what the Bavenda desire. Instead of co-operating with the Government and the Venda people to achieve the ideal of international recognition of this Black people, they are disparaging the Bavenda in a reckless and irresponsible way and by doing so are causing the dream and the vision of a people that would like to be independent and free, to come to grief. The Venda nation is a proud nation that holds fast to its traditions. I want to refer to just one aspect of their national economy in order to show what development has already taken place there. This is in glaring contrast to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said. I want to refer to education in Venda. In Venda itself there are 368 schools with 2 665 Black teachers, 2 187 of which are already fully-trained teachers. That is to say that 82% of the teachers in Venda are already fully-trained teachers. Only 478 teachers do not yet possess the necessary qualifications. Surely this points to a nation that wants to look after its children, a nation which looks after its own future. The Bavenda is a nation that sees to it that its future is developed in a sound way. What is of still greater importance, however, is the fact that 65% of those teachers are male, an advantage achieved by proper planning. I believe that this will ultimately be of great advantage.

The Venda nation invests in its education. We know and believe that they will reap the fruits of this to the benefit of their own people.

I want to conclude by paying tribute at this stage, too, in general, to all the Commissioners-General of the Black peoples, and in particular, in this case, the Commissioner-General of the Bavenda, my predecessor in this hon. House, Dr. J. C. Otto. I should like to thank Dr. Otto and his wife on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House for the fine and good work he has done in Venda. We on this side of the House also want to wish him the best of health for the future and thank him sincerely for the service which he has rendered Venda and will continue to render them in future. I believe that this applies to all the Commissioners-General. Consequently we on this side of the House would like to convey our thanks to them.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister who is dealing with this Bill is not present in this House now. There is a question I should very much like to put to him. Now I wonder whether there is another hon. member on the opposite side who could perhaps reply to this question. [Interjections.] I shall put the question to the hon. the Minister of Finance instead.

Ask away; I shall reply.

Will the hon. member reply to my question? [Interjections.] Never mind, I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister has returned. I am delighted to see that he is back. The hon. the Deputy Minister now has an elevated status. Consequently I think that he is capable of replying to a simple and a direct question. [Interjections.] The question I wish to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister goes to the heart of the NP’s policy of separate development, to establish precisely what the object of that policy is. The last member who replied to this question honestly, sincerely and openly in this House, was the former Minister of Plural Relations, the former member for Randfontein.

And then you were still unable to learn anything.

When that question was put to him at the time he stated openly that the ultimate goal of the NP Government was to ensure that when the policy had been fully implemented there would no longer be any Black person in South Africa who was a South African citizen. [Interjections.] Since then we have time and again, at every possible occasion, asked that question once again to establish whether that is still the policy of the Government.

Were you here when Dr. Treurnicht reply to it?

It is very important that we receive a clear, un-ambiguous reply to that question. I want to put that question once again to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is dealing with this Bill. Is it still the object of the Government that when their policy has been fully implemented there will no longer be a single Black South African citizen in South Africa? [Interjections.] Is that so? [Interjections.] I cannot hear.

Speak up, let us hear.

But I am going to reply in a moment.

Could the hon. the Deputy Minister just say “yes” or “no” so that I may continue with my speech? [Interjections.] He cannot say “yes” or “no”? He cannot even say “well, maybe” (“ja-nee”). Is that not possible? It is a great pity that the former member for Randfontein is no longer sitting in this House.

Are you sorry?

Yes, I am sorry, for that was a person who had the courage of his convictions and who was quite prepared to furnish an immediate and a direct reply to a direct question such as this. Since that hon. member left, however, we have been quite unable to receive an honest reply. All I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to say is “yes” or “no”, for the answer can only be “yes” or “no”. It cannot be an in-between answer.

Maybe.

In this Bill, as in the legislation on the independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana, there is a provision that is extremely dangerous. It is something which presents tremendous dangers to South Africa. It is something which presents tremendous dangers to South Africa in future.

The Progs.

I am referring to the provision in clause 6 which, if I am not mistaken, means that Black people who are at present South African citizens and who have certain minimum civil rights in South Africa owing to their South African citizenship are, without consultation, without recognition being given to their democratic rights in this process, summarily going to lose their South African citizenship. They are summarily going to be deprived of this citizenship.

To South Africa this is a dangerous situation for it does not solve a single problem. One is depriving those people of their citizenship and rights. That is true enough. It is being done summarily, but the people continue to remain in South Africa. They will continue to be inhabitants of South Africa for ever. They will live here, they will work here, they will try to create a future for themselves here, and they have all their interests here. Their children will go to school here, they will live here, they will seek employment opportunities here and this is where their expectations lie. They are seeking their security here, and they are seeking a future for themselves here. Where a person lives and works, is where one has political interests and where one wishes to exercise political rights to be able to take care of those interests. It is perhaps true that at this stage millions of people are being cheated. It is also perhaps true that the Government has succeeded in cheating and bluffing these people because they are unsophisticated and defenceless and because at this stage there are no means for them to look after their own rights, they are being deprived of their rights without much objection or protest having been made or lodged on the part of those people. At some stage or other in the future of this country, however, those people will realize what a tremendous injustice the Government has done to them by way of legislation. They will realize that it was done by way of legislation in the White Parliament of South Africa, that they were not consulted about this and that they had absolutely no share in the process by means of which they lost their basic rights as citizens of South Africa. To illustrate this I want to refer briefly to Schedule B of the Bill. Inter alia, this Schedule reads as follows—

shall cease to be a South African citizen. This does not only mean people who are at present living in Venda, or who are perhaps commuters and are working in the urban areas of South Africa, but also any person who may in any way be designated as a Venda. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to insert a wider definition in this Bill, to extend the ambit of the Schedule in any way at all to designate still more people as Vendas. It cannot be done. The definition is as wide as it could possibly be. Regardless of how many people are affected, of how many centuries or decades they have already been living permanently in the urban areas of South Africa, and despite the fact that they have completely broken their ties with Venda and that all their interests are outside Venda, and regardless of whether it is their own desire to form part of the so-called White South Africa, the Government causes legislation to be passed by the White Parliament which summarily deprives these people of their rights. The Government will not get away with it. At some stage or other in the future of this country that injustice will be rectified. The day of retribution will come. When that day arrives, the people of this country, our children, will have to make amends for the injustice which the Government has committed.

Not only do these people lose their South African citizenship, but also the minimum rights which they enjoy at present owing to their South African citizenship. It is nothing to write home about, because the rights which a Black South African citizen enjoys at present are inferior rights, but at least it is something. They do enjoy a few rights, but with the passing of this legislation they will summarily lose all those rights. Then they have no further rights in South Africa, because if one is not a citizen of a country, one has no rights in that country.

The older you become, the more stupid you become!

No, Sir. With the eradication of their citizenship the rights of those people are eradicated. In the past we have frequently heard that when countries such as Transkei and Bophuthatswana became independent all forms of race discrimination against their citizens working in South Africa would be done away with. Transkei has been independent for more than two years and Bophuthatswana for more than a year, but what forms of discrimination against those people have been removed? Virtually no form of discrimination has been removed. Apart from the fact that a Xhosa or Tswana has lost his rights as a South African citizen, he is today experiencing precisely the same discrimination on the basis of skin colour as he experienced before. He and his leaders have been cheated, for their leaders were promised that if their people accepted independence, no discrimination would be applied against them in South Africa. Today, however, the position of those people is worse than before, because they have lost their South African citizenship as well. At present they are just as subject to the entire spectrum of discriminatory measures on the ground of their skin colour as before.

We do not speak of partition as a solution. The policy of separate development does not entail the application of partition as a solution to the constitutional and other problems of South Africa. That is not the case at all, because if the Government had proposed honestly and sincerely that White and Black, together, should give consideration to and negotiate and decide on the question of partition, we on this side of the House would have said that we did not think that the Government’s policy is one which could work and which could solve the real problems of South Africa, but that we would nevertheless have been prepared to participate in such an investigation. That is not what happened in this case.

What is the choice which is being offered the people of Venda who fall under Schedule B? An honest and fair choice which the Government could present to them is to choose by way of referendum or otherwise between equal citizenship of South Africa with full citizenship rights without any discrimination at all against them on the ground of their skin colour, and the acceptance of the independence of Venda in which they would have to take care of their own affairs. If they were able to choose between these two alternatives, it would have been fair. However, this is not the choice with which they are being presented. The choice confronting these people is either to bow down under the yoke of apartheid and all its accompanying discriminatory measures, disadvantages and opposition, or to accept independence, knowing that it will mean very little to them. After they become independent they will be a so-called free nation, but they will not be better off. Economically they will not be better off. Venda docs not have more economic, geographic or political viability than before. No, they are being compelled to accept a permanent form of servitude. That is the practical effect of the policy of the Government. Consequently I say that if the Government has good and honest intention;, with these people, they will afford them the opportunity of choosing between viable alternatives, viz. full South African citizenship without any form of discrimination on the one hand and independence on the other. Under those circumstances I do not think that any of the Black peoples in South Africa would choose independence. Of course not, because the advantages they would enjoy by remaining pan of South Africa, by remaining part of one strong, viable country, are tremendously great compared to the disadvantages attached to independent Blackk States which are not viable and cannot meet their expectations. If the Venda, the Xhosa, the Tswana or any other Black nation for that matter chooses independence under the circumstances which I have set out, i.e. makes a choice in a fair way and by way of a majority, after having been fully informed of all the “pros and cons” and all the implications of the matter, this party will be able to support that independence, but not under the circumstances in which the Venda people are now becoming independent, because it is not an informed, democratic choice which they are exercising.

In Transkei and in Bophuthatswana there were certain unfortunate circumstances. Just consider, for example, what an experience has been with Transkei. What are the consequences of an independent Transkei for South Africa? What are the implications? If one looks at the Transkei today, one sees that it is an unhappy country. It is a country in which there are tremendous tensions and strains. It is true. For example, if one considers the steps which that country has already taken against South Africa, two years after becoming independent, if one considers the criticism that is being levelled at South Africa and if one considers the prevailing tension between Transkei and South Africa, one must admit that the independence of Transkei cannot in any way be advanced as an example of success in respect of the implementation of NP policy.

I can remember very clearly Chief Mangope of Bophuthatswana saying in public that it was not the independence which he should have liked to have had for his country, but that no alternative existed for him. The only possible way in which he could escape the yoke of apartheid was to accept that independence. He also said that he would employ his independence to destroy the entire system of apartheid. Hon. members cannot say that this is an indication of a success of the policy either.

Hon. members opposite ought to be ashamed, for in Vendaland steps have been taken against the elected leaders of those people by people who were not placed in charge of matters there. Steps were taken against those people. They were thrown into jail to prevent a truly elected Government of Vendaland being returned to power.

When hon. members opposite speak of the right of self-determination and we in these benches speak of the right of self-determination, we are referring to two processes which are far removed from each other. In our opinion right of self-determination is a situation in which the people themselves decide between alternatives, having been fully informed about those alternatives and being able to make a democratic decision between those two alternatives. What those hon. members mean by right of self-determination is that they should be given no option. The people of Vendaland cannot choose between South African citizenship and equal citizenship rights on the one hand and independence on the other. They can only choose between a third-class citizenship of South Africa, weighed down by apartheid with all its discriminatory measures on the one hand and independence on the other. Surely that is no choice. It is clear and it is obvious why they are prepared under those circumstances to accept what the NP is offering them.

The Government is proceeding with this legislation, and Venda will become independent and join the Transkei and Bophuthatswana. It is not impossible that other Black peoples will choose the same course under the circumstances which the NP is creating in South Africa. However, it bodes little good for the future of South Africa. It will only create additional dangers to South Africa, something which is not the case today. According to the provisions of present legislation it is now too late to try to rectify the situation. We know that during the debates on the Transkei and Bophuthatswana becoming independent, all the representations which we made to the Government and all the please which we put forward, were summarily turned down. I think the Government owes it to South Africa, now that it is reconsidering various aspects of its policy, to review once again its policy of separate development and the creation of sovereign independent Black States. I believe that it should do so, not on the basis of the NP alone deliberating and deciding on the matter, but on the basis of real consultation and negotiations with the elected leaders of all the Black peoples. If they do so on a basis where those people are able to choose between alternatives under circumstances in which there is no discrimination or inferior citizenship involved, I venture to predict that the Government will find that the elected Black leaders of the homeland areas will reject the NP policy and will insist on an entirely new approach.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to express my sincere thanks to hon. members for their congratulations which they conveyed to me earlier today. Hon. members of the Opposition as well as hon. members on this side of the House had fine things to say about me, and I should like to say how grateful I am. In the time which lies ahead I shall need their support, co-operation and assistance, and I therefore appreciate their having offered me these things.

Before I begin to react to hon. members’ questions and statements on the legislation before the House, I should like to say that I observed in this debate that the official Opposition, as they sit there, are manifesting the same phenomenon as the old United Party, i.e. an effort to sit on two stools at once.

The hon. Opposition says that the Black States of South Africa may become independent in future. In other words, they agree in principle that these people may become independent. However, they argue that for certain reasons it cannot happen now. In my opinion this is the tactic and the method which the old United Party also adopted. They always agreed in principle, but did not agree with the way in which it was being offered and consequently voted against it. They acted in this way because they wanted to sit on two stools at once.

Who said that?

The hon. member for Musgrave.

What did he say?

I shall quote what the hon. member for Musgrave said about the introduction of the Bill. He said—

It means that the hon. members are not opposed to this in principle, but they do not agree with the conditions on which Venda wishes to become independent. Therefore the hon. members want to sit on two stools. They imply that they are in favour of independence, but they also …

Oh no, please.

Those hon. members tell the people in South Africa who want to become independent that they are in favour of it in principle, and they say that because they do not have the courage to say that they are actually opposed to independence. In reality they have other objectives. The hon. members also tells those people who do not want to become independent—and there are such people and the hon. members on that side of the House feel the same way—that they are on their side. Those hon. members consequently wish to be on everyone’s side …

That is not true.

The hon. members wish to be on everyone’s side. Therefore they are doing what the old United Party did, and that is why they lost ground during the recent by-elections, and why they are doomed to go the way of the old United Party. The hon. member for Musgrave asked why clause 6 was not the same as the clause in respect of Bophuthatswana which provides that a person may regain his citizenship under certain circumstances. The hon. member for Houghton replied to that question. In the citizenship Act provision was made for that. In Venda the position is the same as is the case in respect of a citizen of Bophuthatswana. Any person who now enjoys Venda citizenship and acquires or obtains the citizenship of another Black State, may in that way obtain South African citizenship. The citizenship Act makes provision for that.

In respect of another, very important point, the hon. member for Houghton has the wrong end of the stick altogether. She kept on saying that a woman who is now a Venda citizen loses certain rights. That is not true. The clause which makes provision for the leasehold system of 99 years provides that the descendants of citizens of a self-governing territory remain in precisely the same position as the case would be if independence had not been obtained. [Interjections.] Consequently the hon. member is wrong. She went further and raised the question of passports.

I want to tell the hon. member that Transkeian citizens are at present travelling all over the world on their own passports. If a passport of Transkei, Bophuthatswana or Venda, which is now becoming independent, were not to be recognized, provision has been made for that citizen to apply to his own Government to obtain a passport from South Africa. He may apply to us as well, but then we shall consult that Government first If that Government gives its approval, we then issue that citizen with a South African passport Consequently, as far as the passport situation is concerned, there is no prejudicing whatsoever of any person’s rights.

All kinds of other statements were made. One was that we are fragmenting South Africa. I want to tell hon. members on that side of the House that Africa is already fragmented, precisely because it consists of different States. Surely various States have arisen and have their own boundaries. The boundary lines of the countries in Africa have in most cases been artificially drawn. Surely the boundaries which exist today did not exist when the world was created. Those boundaries were created by people with a creative urge. That is what is happening in South Africa at present Boundary lines are being drawn in a great and powerful creative process. However, those hon. members cannot understand it, and do not want to participate in it. This whole great movement is passing them by, without affecting them in any way. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that decades ago Europe did not present the picture it presents today. At one time it was one vast Roman empire. But when a national awakening took place among the various people, the boundary lines were drawn, and not without bloodshed and strife either. We learnt a lesson from that.

Now the hon. members are saying the fact that Transkei has severed diplomatic relations with South Africa is a demonstration of the failure of our policy. What happened in Europe, where there was military confrontation among States, are things which only happen on a diplomatic level here in South Africa. It is part of the process of the development of nationalism. Such phenomena are part of this process. But surely it does not end there. Those relations grow and develop further.

The hon. members made another statement. They said that Venda had no option but to become independent Surely that is not true. The hon. member for Bryanston stated two alternatives. But surely this is not true. I want to remind hon. members of the conference of leaders of Black States which was held at the Holiday Inn Hotel at the Jan Smuts Airport last year. After that conference the representative of Venda who attended that conference issued a statement in a newspaper in Venda. I want to quote to hon. members what was contained in that statement.

What party did he represent?

He represented the Government of Venda.

The minority party.

The hon. member must listen to this now. I quote—

He said the following—

Then he went on to say—

He said that at that conference propaganda had, inter alia, been made for a federation. However, he walked out of that conference and said that those people had not heard the clamour for independence …

[Inaudible.]

No, as an alternative. At that conference they discussed alternatives. One of those alternatives was federation, as he clearly states here.

A federation in which they do not have a vote.

Nevertheless he walked out of that conference and his country subsequently voted for independence. The hon. member for Musgrave made a terrible statement when he said that the Black people of South Africa are being misled by the Government I reject it with contempt Venda is the third State to become independent Consequently this is the third time that citizenship is under discussion here, the third time that all these things have come up for discussion. When Venda decided in an election to become independent it was certainly nothing new. At that stage Transkei and Bophuthatswana were already independent. Surely those people speak to one another. Surely they also read newspapers. Surely this matter has been debated and discussed in the newspapers, not on one occasion only, but repeatedly. Consequently no one can say that the people of Venda did not know what was at issue. No one can say that. There was an election. No candidate …

You imprisoned the winners.

No candidate stated during that election that he was opposed to independence. [Interjections.] After that there was a recess committee, on which the Opposition* was represented. The Opposition moved amendments to the constitution.

They participated in the entire process. They had to draw up and amend the constitution. The product of that recess committee was submitted to the Legislative Assembly of Venda. The Opposition was represented on that recess committee, people from the urban areas were represented on it Altogether there were nine of them. Not one of them voted against that constitution.

What was the polling percentage?

The most remarkable part of this business is that the Chief Minister of Venda and his Cabinet issued a statement last week. It was read out to us today here by the hon. member for Port Natal. The same statement was also published in The Cape Times. In it is clearly stated that the people of Venda place the highest premium on their citizenship.

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

All you can do is hold protest meetings. You cannot ask questions.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the alternative of a federation was also discussed at that conference. If the leaders of the homelands were to decide that they would prefer to enter into a federation with South Africa, would the South African Government be prepared to agree to that?

Mr. Speaker, that is the next question which I also wish to raise with the hon. member. It is pathetic, but hon. members of the Opposition do not even know how many Black States there are in South Africa. There are ten Black States in South Africa.

What States? They are all part of South Africa.

Very well then. We can call them homelands if you like. The fact of the matter is, however, that those hon. members do not even know how many there are. They do not even know how many peoples they are dealing with. [Interjections.] The policy of the Government is a policy of self-determination. We believe that every nation has a right to self-determination. Every nation has that right, including the White nation as well. We also have it. The White nation also has that right to self-determination, and consequently it is its prerogative to decide for itself. In future … [Interjections.] Every nation has the right to decide for itself. Hon. members of the Opposition, however, are not prepared to take the opinion of the Whites into consideration. [Interjections.] If a proposal is put forward, surely the White nation has the right to consider and to decide whether it is acceptable or not Surely we have the right to do so. The fact of the matter, however, is that no Black States with common boundaries have so far proceeded to enter into a federation with one another, or even to propose the formation of a federation. [Interjections.] No one has yet made that suggestion.

[Inaudible.]

So far no one has made such a suggestion.

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon. member for Green Point wishes to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question, he should rise and do so. However, he cannot remain seated and keep up a running commentary.

Not one of the Black States have ever made such a suggestion. Three of them, however …

At any rate I make fair interjections.

Oh please, you are nothing but a coward.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member for Green Point question your ruling by saying that he makes fair interjections? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Chief Whip …

Order! I shall give attention to what the hon. member for Green Point said. However, the hon. Chief Whip must first withdraw his statement that the hon. member is a coward.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Did the hon. member for Green Point question my ruling?

Mr. Speaker, I said I made fair interjections.

The hon. member should not have said that He should abide unconditionally by my ruling. The hon. member may not make any further interjections in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Green Point has just said that the hon. member for Tygervallei is a coward. He ought to withdraw it as well.

Order! If the hon. member said anything to that effect he must withdraw it immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

You are nothing but a “meid”.

Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. Chief Whip say that I am a “meid”? [Interjections.]

No, he may not; it is too much of a compliment for you. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please not turn the proceedings of this House into a farce. If the hon. Chief Whip said anything to that effect, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the Opposition have referred on more than one occasion to the so-called sham independence of Venda. Of course they would like it to be a sham independence. One of the ways in which they are trying to give the true independence of Venda a semblance of being a sham, is by means of the citizenship issue. But South Africa is not in bad company as far as this matter is concerned. I have read quite widely on the question of citizenship. I have done quite a good deal of research, and although I am not going to enumerate everything, I did come across a few interesting things, and I now want to quote a few examples. On 4 July 1946 the Philippine Islands obtained their independence from the USA and the Filipinos forfeited their status as US nationals. They lost their US nationality. An exclusively Philippine nationality came into existence with the transfer of sovereignty, and in 1950 it was expressly ruled that Filipinos who had been domiciled in the USA, forfeited their US nationality and became foreigners in the USA. They did not have an option of retaining US nationality. Nowhere could I find, however, that they did not forfeit the rights which they had, and in that respect the situation in South Africa is completely different. The nationality aspect is identical, but care is being taken in this case that the people do not lose any rights.

I wish to mention another example.

Were those Filipinos born in America?

No, I am just mentioning it However, those hon. members are besotted by what the Americans do. Why did that hon. member’s leader not telephone Mr. McHenry and ask why they did not reach an agreement?

That is a stupid remark.

I suggest that their leader should phone Mr. McHenry tomorrow and ask whether it is true.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister—because I do not know the circumstances—whether those Filipinos were born in America or whether they were merely domiciled there?

They were born there, and had American nationality. Then they lost that nationality. They had no choice.

I come now to another example, that of the Netherlands. On 27 December 1949 the Netherlands transferred the full sovereignty of Indonesia to the Republic of the United States of Indonesia and Indonesia was recognized as an independent and sovereign State. For the transfer of sovereignty there was an agreement, and this agreement was “de ooreenkoms betreffende de toescheiding van de staatburgers”. This came into operation between the two States at that stage. In terms of that agreement the Netherlanders were “toegescheiden”—that means the people were assigned—to the Netherlands, and those belonging to the indigenous population who had been Dutch subjects, to Indonesia. In other words, they were separated from the Netherlands. The people who were Netherlanders became Dutch citizens and those who were Indonesians became Indonesian citizens, regardless of where they lived. This is consequently a normal phenomenon. Consequently I am saying that what those hon. members are trying to do is to present the independence of Venda as a sham independence by involving the issue of citizenship.

I think there are in fact Vendas who agree with them, but in this debate not a single member was able to quote a single Venda who had said that he did not want to become a citizen of Venda.

Most of the urban Venda.

There will in fact be such people but they have not quoted one yet, and they are going to straggle to find such people because they are in the minority by far.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

If there is just one Venda who says that he does not want citizenship of Venda, those hon. members will take his part and adopt such a standpoint with all their might—even if there is only one.

All the urban Venda.

What has crystallized in this debate is the contrast between the policy of this party and what it wants to make possible, and the rejection thereof by that party. The first thing one should take cognizance of is that this party recognizes democracy. It is reflected in what is happening here. I told hon. members that these people had participated. All the processes took place. The Opposition, urban dwellers and citizens living in the homeland itself, participated. Everyone participated. However, the PFP is opposed to this and is still looking for one person who says that he is opposed to independence. In the hope that such a person exists, the Opposition is opposed to this legislation. However, they are on the side of the minority. They want the will of the minority to triumph over that of the majority. That is why I want to say that the PFP took leave of democracy a long time ago. They do not believe in it any longer, because their own policy, with a veto system, makes provision for the will of the minority and not for the will of the majority. Consequently they want to write off the will of the majority of the Vendas. They are not interested in it Surely this is a phenomenon which is generally encountered in the world today. This is what the UN is doing, in spite of its Charter, whereby all people are granted the same right of self-determination. In places such as Zimbabwe Rhodesia and South West Africa the UN does not wish to recognize the majority. The USA does this as well, and now the PFP is on the same course. The majority no longer exists for the PFP, only the minority.

There is something else which the PFP rejects, something which is promoted by the policy of the Government, and that is cooperation. I want to quote again from what the Minister of Education of Venda said, and at the same remind the hon. member for Musgrave that he has stated that the PFP would recognize independence in future. The Minister of Education of Venda said, inter alia—

He spoke of economic co-operation between states, and also on the technical and other levels. Now I want to tell hon. members—the hon. the Prime Minister has already spelt this out clearly—that the foundations and the walls first have to be built before the roof is put up. In other words, nations must first become independent, and only when they are free can they be negotiated with as equals on the constellation of states and the form which this ought to take. There can only be fruitful co-operation when each nation has the absolute knowledge that it is politically safe, has its own right to self-determination and that, from that power-base, it can co-operate, from its own position of strength and without any threats, with the other nations of Southern Africa. The Vendas realize this and say that the “marking of time” to which the hon. member for Musgrave referred is merely a method of wrecking this co-operation.

The PFP also rejects consultation and deliberation. The establishment of an independent Venda is the result of a prolonged process of negotiations between the Government of South Africa and the Government of Venda. Those negotiations were in progress for 18 months, and a consensus was reached. But the PFP rejects consultation and deliberation. The PFP rejects any co-operation and any understanding which is arrived at in this way, while the NP is implementing these things in conjunction with the nationalists of the other nations.

The PFP rejects nationalism too. It is true that the PFP and the parties which preceded it, had a history of the subjugation of nationalism. They do not have a history of constructive …

Prove that.

They have a record of disparagement I must say that the other members of the PFP were not as bitter and disparaging in this debate as the hon. member for Orange Grove. Once again, in his old and hackneyed way, he spoke disparagingly of a proud nation that has its own ideals and its own vision of the future. He tried to disparage them by saying that they did not have a right to exist and a potential for survival. They say Venda is not viable and quoted from an economic survey carried out by Berbd in 1976, a survey which is already obsolete. These young states grow at a tremendous pace. I just want to enumerate a few things which have been achieved since that survey appeared. In 1975 the Venda Development Corporation Limited was established; I want to refer to what has been achieved by this corporation in the short period of its existence. Through its mediation food manufacturing industries were established in Venda which process and even export the mango’s, guavas, and grenadillas, etc., cultivated by the indigenous population. That is what they are using the roads for, to which the hon. member referred. They have also established a maize mill to process the products cultivated by the population, and distribute them locally. In addition this organization has helped to establish a brewery, a bakery and a brickworks. All these things have been established, not through the corporation alone, but also through private enterprise with the help of the corporation. It established an industrial township in which 16 Venda industrialists have been established. Besides the tripartite companies …

Where is that industrial area?

At Sibasa. It helped to establish large tripartite companies, including a building construction company, which has already completed contracts to a value of R10 million in Venda. The Venda nation has been allowed to buy shares in these companies. The share issues of all these companies have been over subscribed as a result of the interest displayed in them by the Venda people. As far as commerce and services are concerned, 120 loans were granted to Venda businessmen during these three years. That is a tremendous achievement.

Hon. members asked what is happening in the agricultural sector. In agriculture there is at present 15 irrigation schemes, of which 1 800 farmers are availing themselves. An additional two irrigation schemes are being planned, one of which will place 1 000 hectares under irrigation. I want to tell the hon. member that the production of wheat, maize and other crops has increased phenomenally during these years. Forest plantations have been established. One sawmill is already in production and a second sawmill will be put into operation by the end of next month. Venda also has an industry which manufactures treated poles, etc.

In Venda we have a fantastic combination. It has a Government which is inspired in its endeavour to serve the country, and a nation which is dedicated. There are officials who are prepared to make their knowledge and experience available to help these people. It is as a result of this that the tremendous development was able to take place and it was possible to undertake the various projects to which I have referred.

But there is one thing which is of fundamental importance to me in the development of a state, and that is nationalism and idealism which brings out the very best in a nation. This one sees if one visits Venda. It was a pleasure for me, an inspiration and quite a wonderful experience to be able to share in this unfolding process of their nationalism, of the process in which they serve and develop their fatherland. In the Sinai desert—the homeland of the hon. member for Houghton—I saw people …

I was born in South Africa.

Where else do you think she was born?

I do not care where she was born.

Then why do you say such silly things?

It does not make any difference. In the Sinai desert I found people farming on small pieces of land, 5 ha in extent, and there they were ploughing the land under the hot sun, where they could be shot off their tractor at any time by their enemies. If one asks that person whether it is worthwhile doing all these things for only 5 ha in the desert, his reply is that he is not doing it for the 5 ha, but for his fatherland. In Venda there are also people who are doing similar things for their fatherland. I want to ask the hon. members of the Opposition whether that feeling bums in their hearts as well…

No.

No, that feeling is not burning in the hearts of the hon. members of the Opposition. That is why we on this side will continue, and nothing and no one will divert us from our course. Nothing will divert the National Party from its course. This is the evolution of history which is occurring here, and we are part of it. The Opposition, however, stands aside. It is a tragedy that they disparage these splendid and noble things, those things which are evolving at this juncture of our history in South Africa. Is it not possible for that spirit of nationalism to take root in them as well so that they can become part of this?