Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half hour.

In the time at my disposal I want to be absolutely blunt in what I am seeking and I intend to dwell on one particular issue and matters flowing therefrom. I want to know from the hon. the Minister during the course of this debate what the Government’s intentions are in respect of homelands or Black States who do not want independence. That is the simple question. I believe it is vital that the hon. the Minister should tell us this during this debate in definitive terms and not in flowery language or in vague generalities. I believe that this is a matter of extreme importance at the present time in South Africa.

During the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote last week, the hon. the Prime Minister indicated that the non-independent homelands who do not opt for independence could not be considered as units in his proposed constellation of States. In reply to a question I put to him, he said they would be part of the South African delegation, whatever that may mean. I want to know what the Government sees as the future constitutional development of these regions, the regions whose people do not opt for the independence offered by the Government, but who opt instead to remain part and parcel of the Republic of South Africa within the sovereignty of this Parliament. What will their economic future be? What will the political stake be of the people who live within these areas? At the moment these homeland areas are the economically backward areas of South Africa. There are conditions of dire poverty and considerable human deprivation present there. These areas are dependent on restricted hand-outs by the Treasury each year for the operation of the limited infrastructure which has been provided there.

We want to know how the Government intends meeting not only their economic need, but also the political aspirations of the people who at present have no say in the making of laws in terms of which they are governed within the Republic. It is vital at this stage for the Government to come clean on this issue and answer these questions. So often, in Government publications and speeches by Government members, the impression is created independence is a fait accompli in respect of all the homeland areas. They deal with them as if that independence has already been accepted and as if that independence has already taken place in respect of all of them. We talk in terms of Black States, of national States, as if they are something quite apart from the rest of South Africa. There is a long history to this matter, a matter which now is of considerable topical importance. The Government has repeatedly asserted that these Black States are free to take independence at any time and that independence will not be forced upon them. Government spokesmen would have us believe that the Government, motivated by an almost boundless magnanimity, will grant independence whenever it is asked for. That is one side of the coin. The other side is what the option of these States is if they do not want independence. It is that question that I want to be answered. What is their future?

To return again to the history of the matter. When the Government produced its constitutional proposals before the last general election, it expressly excluded Blacks from the proposed Council of Cabinets and included representation for only the Coloured group, the Indian group and the White group. When the question was asked what would happen if the Coloureds or the Indians were to withhold their co-operation in the implementation of the Government’s 1977 plan, the NP gave an answer, and I want to quote here from a document to which I have referred before in debates in this House, a NP election pamphlet. I want to quote a question and answer. The question was—

The reply that was given in the pamphlet was—

That was the Government’s attitude, a take-it-or-leave-it attitude: “You either take the food that we give you, or you go without.” I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is still the attitude of the Government. Do they still have this take-it-or-leave-it attitude set out in this NP pamphlet? Is this still their attitude in regard to the political rights, the economic rights and the rights of citizenship of people who live in the non-independent homeland areas? In recent times we have been reading in the Press, particularly the Government Press, that it is the Government’s intention to introduce during this session of Parliament legislation which will bring about major changes in the constitution of South Africa and that, included in these changes, will be the establishment of a President’s Council, which will be advisory to the State President on matters affecting, inter alia, the future constitutional developments in South Africa. According to reports, the council will be nominated and will be representative of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, but the Blacks, the majority group, will be excluded from any direct representation on that President’s Council.

I want to warn the hon. the Minister and the Government with all the sincerity at my command that if these reports are true, and if this is in fact their intention, they will be setting South Africa on a final disaster course “with consequences too ghastly to contemplate”, to quote the words of the previous hon. Prime Minister. I say this because if this is going to be their attitude, it will be a calculated and deliberate slap in the face to millions of Black South Africans who are as much entitled as any Coloured, Indian or White South African to participate jointly in deliberations relating to the future constitutional development of this country. Indeed, they should be free to participate jointly in the decision-making processes in this country at the present time. If this does not happen, it will be a disaster because it will cut the ground from under the feet of homeland leaders and other Blacks who have exercised considerable patience and restraint in their quest for peaceful change in South Africa, often in the face of mounting demands, hostility and denigration from militants among their own people. In this regard I want to direct a special word to the hon. the Minister. I have great problems with the hon. the Minister because I like him.

That is indeed a serious problem.

It may be a serious problem, but I do have this problem. Since taking over this portfolio, the hon. the Minister has achieved much, and I gladly and generously acknowledge it. He has shown compassion, understanding and flexibility and an ability to communicate with Blacks which is wholly admirable. In fact, I would say that in the field of race relations the hon. the Minister is the biggest, if not the only, asset the Cabinet has. [Interjections.] I have watched him closely and have witnessed his performance before a variety of interest groups in South Africa. I have monitored his movements and commitments with a great deal of interest. Perhaps I should not praise the hon. the Minister too much, but I want to say that I was present last year when, at the opening of the great Sacla conference before 5 000 Christian South Africans of all races on the Pretoria Show Grounds, the hon. the Minister gave testimony in a moving address of his commitment to the brotherhood of man, free of racism and free of racial differences. I was present also last year when the hon. the Minister opened the 1979 session of the kwaZulu Assembly in Ulundi. I was present later last year at the ceremonies and commemorations in connection with the so-called Zulu War in Northern Natal where again the hon. the Minister performed with distinction. In recent weeks and recent months I have discussed the hon. the Minister with homeland leaders and other people around South Africa, and I have found that his personal reputation is high. But, having said all that, I must warn the hon. the Minister that he is the last tenuous link of credibility between the Government and the mass of the Black population of South Africa, and that unless he and the Government deliver the goods by means of real, urgent and meaningful changes, that link will soon snap. The exclusion of the mass of Blacks from equal and joint participation in the discussion on immediate constitutional change in South Africa, will assist that link to snap, and in addition to that affronts and insults to homeland leaders will be another factor which will make that link snap.

This brings me to the discussion which took place in this House last week on the Government’s reaction to the proposed kwaZulu initiative relating to the setting up of a commission to discuss the interrelationship between Natal and kwaZulu, which again produced disturbing views relating to the position of non-independent homelands, their leaders and their inhabitants and again underlined the need for a clear definition to be given by the Government as to how it views the future of these non-independent homelands. I want to urge the hon. the Minister to use the opportunity provided by this debate to clear up the Government’s position in relation to the kwaZulu initiative and the rights and the status of non-independent kwaZulu and other non-independent States once and for all.

There were three speeches last week on this issue during the hon. the Prime Minister’s budget Vote, Speeches which were all thoroughly disturbing. The first was a speech by the hon. member for Umlazi. He was the first on the Government benches to reject the initiative. He spoke in the following terms (Hansard, col. 4960-4961)—

The hon. member then carried on in these terms.

If the words of the hon. member for Umlazi have any meaning at all what he means is that kwaZulu is not an integral part of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development specifically: Does he agree with the hon. member for Umlazi on this point? Is kwa-Zulu an integral part of South Africa or not? If not, what is it? The hon. the Minister must deal with this because I believe it is a very important matter.

In the same debate the hon. member for South Coast categorically rejected the kwaZulu initiative in the name of the NP. He said (Hansard, col. 5062-5063)—

Does the hon. the Minister agree with the hon. member for South Coast on that issue?

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, Sir, my time is limited. The hon. member may participate later.

Zulus are not allowed to speak in this House.

Whom do you represent in this House?

Quite frankly, that hon. member has done enough harm to race relations in recent weeks in any case.

I want to refer to the third speech which was equally, if not more, disturbing. I refer to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, who, on two or three occasions during one of his replies to that debate, said that while he conceded it was the right of Chief Buthelezi to establish a commission to investigate matters concerning “his country”, but, he said, if the idea was to deal with matters falling under the jurisdiction of the South African Government, “I say no”. On two or three occasions the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the “Chief Buthelezi and his country”, and said that if the chief’s idea was to deal with South Africa the reply was “no”.

The hon. the Minister has known Chief Buthelezi for almost as long as I have. He ought to know what Chief Buthelezi’s view is on the question of independence. He ought to know that Chief Buthelezi has consistently said he is not interested in a separate independence for kwaZulu and that he sees his future alongside the rest of South Africa. In those circumstances, and the hon. the Minister must answer this specifically: What does he think the country of Chief Buthelezi is? Must he be confined only to what the Government determines is kwaZulu, or is Chief Buthelezi’s country the same as that of the hon. the Minister, me and the rest of this House? I want him to answer that question. [Interjections.]

Did you not hear the hon. the Prime Minister’s answer to the hon. member for Durban Point?

I want the hon. the Minister to deal with this because I believe it is extremely important.

What are the motives behind the kwaZulu initiative? Time does not permit me to read all the terms of reference, but I want to read some of them—

These are some of the terms of reference which are well known. They have been well publicized and are deserving of far more attention and a far better response from the Government than they have received so far. I also want to read to the House extracts of the message which Chief Buthelezi sent to the hon. the Minister at the beginning of last week in which he amplifies his motives and which, surely, must have been within the knowledge of members of the Government party during that debate last week.

Where did you get that from?

I have it. Never mind where I got it from. Chief Buthelezi, in his message to the hon. the Minister, said, and I am going to quote fairly extensively from this—

Not in kwaZulu politics, but in South African politics—

He went on to indicate what his purpose was by saying—

These are earnest pleas to the hon. the Minister, and he was aware of this when that debate took place last week. Chief Buthelezi went on in his message to the hon. the Minister and said—

He then describes the situation of kwaZulu in relation to Natal and said—

And so he went on and one could quote at great length. He also said, and this I think is a very important and compelling matter which certainly should be taken note of by those hon. members of this House who come from Natal and which, one would hope, would be observed by other hon. members as well—

Then, just a final quotation from this paragraph. Towards the end the chief said—

These are the words, not of an agitator or an irresponsible man; these are the words of a man of concern, of a man who cares about South Africa, of a man who, despite endless provocation from both the left and the right, is committed to peaceful change in South Africa. These are the words addressed to the hon. the Minister by the leader of the largest single ethnic group in South Africa. I believe that the kwaZulu initiative is a well-meant one and I believe that it has opened up an exciting option for those committed to work for peaceful change in this country. It has widespread backing amongst all sections of the population in Natal commerce and industry and every other section—and is a clear manifestation by the majority of the population of Natal of their desire to seek accommodation for all within our society and to work for peaceful change.

I believe that in those circumstances it is a gratuitous insult to reject out of hand this gesture of goodwill in seeking discussion about the interrelationships between kwaZulu and the province of Natal. The hon. the Minister must know what damage has been done by last week’s debate in this House. It has caused grave concern and deep anger amongst the Zulu people. The hon. the Minister will know that while we were talking on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote last week, a snap emergency debate was taking place in the kwaZulu Assembly, a debate in which members expressed their anger at what was taking place here in Cape Town, and during which a motion was passed calling upon the Prime Minister to control his backbenchers and to see to it that they exercised some responsibility. I believe the point has been well taken. I believe that for a long time it has been evident in this House, amongst sections of the NP at any rate, that moves have been afoot to denigrate Chief Buthelezi at every possible opportunity. I want to say that it is disgraceful, hurtful and totally irresponsible.

That is not true and you should know it.

I think there are hon. members who resent that comment, but then I must refer to a speech by the hon. member for Parys. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with the sort of opinion expressed in this House by the hon. member for Parys on 16 April 1980. He said (Hansard, 16 April 1980, col. 4122)—

Later on he said—

Does this do anything to improve race relations in South Africa? Will the hon. the Minister, when he meets Chief Minister Buthelezi, be proud of that sort of utterance by an hon. member of his party? What is he doing to stop this sort of insulting language being used? I believe that if the hon. the Minister, the Government, wants good race relations in South Africa, they must call off their backbenchers to stop this sort of denigration of Black leaders in this country. I also believe that the Government must come clean and indicate—and I hope the hon. the Minister will do so in this debate— in clear, categorical terms what future it offers for those homeland States that do not want the independence the Government is offering.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave devoted the greater part of his speech to interceding for Chief Minister Buthelezi. It is his privilege to do so, but I should just like to tell him that we on this side of the House regard Chief Minister Buthelezi as a man in his own right and as leader of his own people and his own cultural movement, Inkatha. He is Chief Minister of his country and we believe that as such he is fully capable of speaking for himself. Indeed, he did so the other day, when he said that people like the hon. member for Houghton and the liberals should refrain from trying to speak on his behalf. He is capable of doing so himself. Indeed, I think he is far better at it than the hon. member for Musgrave. I believe that it goes without saying that the hon. the Minister knows Chief Minister Buthelezi better than the hon. member for Musgrave knows him, and therefore he will probably get along with him far better than does the hon. member for Musgrave.

As far as that aspect is concerned, I just wish to say that if the hon. member thinks that we on this side of the House do not recognize the position of Chief Minister Buthelezi, he is making a big mistake. The hon. member will also be making a mistake if he thinks that we on this side of the House will always hasten to agree with what the Chief Minister says simply because he is Chief Buthelezi. After all, that is what those hon. members do. We do not even agree with the hon. Leader of the PFP; why then should we necessarily agree with what Chief Minister Buthelezi, or any of the other Chief Ministers in the country have to say. We do not intend parroting what those people say; we intend assisting them and co-operating with them.

Why do you humiliate them?

The hon. the Prime Minister’s reply to the initiatives of Chief Minister Buthelezi is 100% clear. Surely there can be no misunderstanding in this connection. The big problem, however, is that that hon. member and his party are simply unable to accept that if the discussions between Chief Minister Buthelezi and the provincial administration of Natal continue, they will not be included, because it will be a discussion between the Chief Minister and the NRP. The discussion on Natal will be conducted between the NRP and Chief Minister Buthelezi and the hon. members of the PFP are so sour about that that they are using this opportunity to vent their spleen.

We are part of the discussion.

They will be part of the discussion and will serve on the commission, but I grant the hon. member for Durban Point that they will call the tune and the hon. members of the PFP will be nowhere. The NRP will discuss the matter of Natal with Chief Minister Buthelezi and only passing reference will be made to the liberals of the PFP.

There is another point the hon. member tried to make about something which we are now sick and tired of. The question was put once again: What is to become of the Black national states if they do not wish to accept independence? I do not wish to dwell on this for too long because I have other matters to discuss that are more important than such nonsense, that has in any event been replied to several times. Our policy is very clear. We should like to see these Black states asking for their independence, but we say that we shall not compel them to do so. If they ask for it, it will be considered. We have already said that if they do not ask for it, the position will remain as it is at present. That is very clear.

Later in the course of my speech I shall say that the position as it stands now need not necessarily remain so for always. We shall speak to those people again. The hon. member is trying to lead us to believe that those people will never ask for independence. However, I am not so sure that the hon. member is not perhaps telling them that they should not ask for independence. [Interjections.] The hon. member wants them eventually to fall in with the PFP’s system, but the PFP also knows that no Black national state would ever fall in with their system after independence. That is why they are getting so very concerned at this juncture.

There are a few matters which I should like to raise today. I think it is important that they be raised. If I sound negative to begin with, I want to point out that I do not intend that; I should like to make an effort to show realism in regard to certain aspects. I am particularly concerned about the development of the Black states.

Too late for Fauresmith.

I ask the hon. member for Pinelands to give me a chance, because what I want to say today concerns realities, and it is irrelevant whether the NP, the NRP or the PFP is in power. What I wish to discuss are hard realities concerning the Black states, and it does not matter what political systems we are dealing with. The stated policy and priorities of the Government are to develop the various national states into full-fledged states. That is our policy and in this regard we disagree with the other parties, although it is true that elements of our policy are incorporated in their policy. When I say that this is our priority in South Africa, I do not wish to intimate thereby that we should underestimate the role of the so-called urban Black people in South Africa.

In particular I do not wish to underestimate the role played by the so-called urban Black people in the PWV area. Nor do I want to derogate from the importance of the Black people in the Rand complex. Yesterday we conducted a major debate on the role of these people, but I want to point out that it is not the policy of the NP that its political philosophy with regard to the Black people of the country be dictated to from Soweto. I want to repeat that. It is not the point of departure of the Government that the philosophy of its policy with regard to Black people in the country be dictated to from Soweto. However important Soweto may be, we make ourselves ridiculous when we are constantly obsessed with Soweto. The NP has a specific policy, a policy which amounts to a division of power. Hon. members opposite agree that we cannot share power in a unitary state in South Africa. Therefore the NP’s policy of the division of power gives rise to the Black national states. That is the NP’s policy of the division of power.

The effect of the NP’s policy, as we shall see in due course, will require a further thorough investigation into the confederal approaches in order to achieve what we should like to achieve. We shall have to determine what that would involve for us. If that is indeed our policy, the system of a constellation of states on a confederal basis could only develop to its full potential if we were dealing with independent states in which everyone sharing in that option is equal. It is very important that we take note of that.

At the same time we must not overlook the mutual interdependence of South Africa and the independent states. This interdependence is of great importance for us, particularly with regard to the development of the Black states. As far as I am concerned—and I feel that I must say this—the picture with regard to the economic development of the Black states is not impressive. I do not wish to detract from the good things that have already been done and what has already been achieved in this regard. However, I do think it would be pointless, that it would be unrealistic, if we did not acquaint ourselves fully with this situation and ask ourselves what we wish to achieve in this connection.

I wish to point out once again that the economic development of these national states must be priority number one for all hon. members in this House, because the economic stability that may be achieved within the Black states figures in one facet or the other of the policy of every party represented in this House. Therefore we ought not to score political points off one another in regard to this matter. It is estimated that in 1978 about 49% of the total population was resident in the national states. That in itself sounds like a good figure. However, it varies from 5,3% in the case of Qwa-Qwa, to 68,2% in the case of Venda. This is not a matter to be regarded lightly, because this is something which ought not to be so. The annual increase in the number of workers in the national Black states in South Africa between 1972 and 1975 was approximately 100 000. [Time expired.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to say thank you to the hon. member for Pinelands. I am entitled to the next ten minutes. [Interjections.] Never mind, the hon. member for Pinelands must please not take me seriously. [Interjections.]

In the period 1972 to 1975 there were approximately 100 000 people for whom employment opportunities had to be provided in the Black states, as against 90 000 for whom employment opportunities had to be created in the White areas. This amounts to a total of 190 000. We can therefore take it that between 1980 and 1992 this amount will increase to 220 000 or even 230 000. Notwithstanding all that has been achieved in this regard, this is a disturbing figure. It means that the creation of employment opportunities within the national States was able to accommodate only 28,4% of their annual labour growth. This is a disturbing figure. The rest have to be accommodated somewhere, either as commuters, or as infiltrators who have to be provided with employment in White South Africa. This immediately brings us to the question: To what extent are we achieving the necessary level of economic development in these Black States? Let us take a further look at the contribution of these national States to the South African domestic product. In 1960 it was 2,7% and by 1975 it had increased to 3,1%. In spite of this slight improvement their contribution is still very meagre, particularly if one takes into account the fact that the de facto populations of these national States comprise approximately 35% of all the people in Southern Africa and that they possess 13% of the total land area. Due to the favourable climatological factors it is calculated that 23% of the total agricultural potential of Southern Africa is situated within these national States. In spite of this, and in spite of government inputs, progress in this sphere is slow and really disappointing.

Production in the agricultural sector is handicapped by many factors. One hon. member referred here to the question of communal land ownership, which has an extremely limiting effect on the production of that land. When consolidation is being discussed, many of these Black States ask for more land. When they tell us that they cannot even handle what they have, and we ask why they want still more land, they say that they do not make a living out of agriculture because they have a system of communal land ownership. They say that they are seeking individual land ownership. They ask us to give them more land so that they can have individual land ownership. However, is it our task to introduce individual land ownership? We shall have to look at this matter.

If these national States utilize their potential properly, they could provide food for at least 25 million people in this country. At this stage they only provide food for 3 million of the 10 million people of those States. With the best will in the world, and while appreciating our whole decentralization effort in South Africa, I must say that the decentralization effort in South Africa has not succeeded in effectively stimulating the economic activities in these Black States. There are of course certain places such as Rosslyn that are situated close to concentrated economic development, and there something has indeed happened, but in remote areas, which are places where there is a demand for work, no progress has been made. The commercial and service sectors appear at first glance to have made fantastic progress in these Black States. There is an enormous number of shops and all that they involve. Despite this, 44% of the Black buying power drained into the White area in 1975 due to the fact that the Black people within those national States did not have the confidence to do business with their own people in those areas.

I can go further as far as this is concerned. We should ask ourselves, too, whether this is not one of the reasons why private initiative does not wish to invest in those Black States. However, there is another problem. In 1970 there were 793 000 migrant labourers. In 1978 the number increased to 1,1 million. Many of these migrant labourers, who come to offer their services in the White area, represent a braindrain from the national States. We cannot afford that braindrains White South Africa at the expense of the national States.

I do not wish to make a big fuss about the housing situation. The subject has already been discussed here at length. However, it is very important that we should take note of this. I just want to refer briefly to a few other matters. Government expenditure in the various regions has increased between 1973-’74 and 1978-’79 from an amount of R301 million to an amount of R1 119 million. Despite this enormous increase we find that as far as the priorities of the national States themselves are concerned, the expenditure structure of the funds is not utilized economically. There is a very strong tendency among these people to stimulate social programmes rather than to look at investment programmes. They give preference to matters such as health, pensions and education. As a result, funds from this expenditure are not made available for investment programmes. It is very important that we should look at this, because if this trend continues we are simply creating welfare States in these Black States without the necessary real economic stimulation. The lack of development orientation and funds for capital investment has resulted in the national States building up backlogs with regard to their infrastructure of roads, railways, electricity supply and everything that goes with that. The hon. member for Musgrave also referred to that.

I want to stress that we have great respect for what has been achieved in these areas. However, we cannot stress enough what still remains to be done to really get the economic development in those regions off the ground. I have taken out the Tomlinson report again and dusted it off. Hon. members will recall that it appeared in 1954. We are still learning from the Tomlinson report today. I really think we would do well to take it off the shelf and have another careful look at it. It would be in the interests of South Africa. In the interests of these development projects—I do not like these notes of mine; let me rather speak off the cuff—we must ask ourselves why we are not attracting private initiative to the areas in question. I want to say that we must not beat about the bush, as the saying goes, in connection with this matter. There are two reasons why private initiative is not investing in the Black States. In the first place, it is due to a lack of a proper economic policy on the part of the national States themselves. In the second place it is due to a fear of political instability. When I speak about a lack of economic policy, it is not my intention to reproach the national States. These people are struggling; they have problems. At this stage we probably have more White officials in the States that are already independent than there have ever been before. They have been seconded there simply to help those people to get into their stride and stay there.

There are two problems we have to solve. We must promote the point of view that the economy of Southern Africa is a collective economy.

Hear, hear!

The hon. members of the NRP must not think that I am promoting their policy. They are completely stupid. I am speaking about the economic situation in Southern Africa. No one can talk their way around that. It is not simply a matter of the national States. It goes wider than that.

We agree.

The only way in which we can establish that Southern African economic structure properly, is by way of a constellation of States.

A confederation.

The hon. member must wait a little. He must not display his ignorance so clearly. He will have to get a doctors’ degree in history before he can make himself out to be a historian. In a constellation of States we shall be able to achieve this. We can deal with the political instability that will result from all these things by way of the confederal system. Then we must get to grips with the most important thing of all, and that is that we must have a development bank to instil the necessary confidence so that the economies of those States can develop. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope I am not giving the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke the kiss of death by congratulating him on a large part of his speech. I am virtually in full agreement with his analysis of the problem. His only problem is, of course, that we have the solution while he has nothing but the problems. [Interjections.] I want to suggest to him to go and read the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River during the budget debate.

What did he say?

I do not have the time to repeat it today, but we shall have another opportunity to discuss it. The Government dawdled too long before taking over our confederation idea. Now that they have taken it over, they should go just a little bit further. Whereas independence and equal status are, of course, best, it is not necessary to fragment the country first. The structure has to be created, a national state could achieve independence and then immediately join the confederation. It is not necessary to fragment the country first and to wait until all areas have achieved independence before bringing them together. This could be a direct action.

In this respect we disagree with each other.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave. My views are on record with regard to the kwaZulu Commission. I dealt with that aspect during the course of the Prime Minister’s Vote. I respect Chief Minister Buthelezi’s condemnation of White liberals who purport to speak on his behalf or on behalf of the Zulus. Therefore I am not going to purport to speak for Chief Minister Buthelezi. He can speak for himself.

[Inaudible.]

He criticized the hon. member for Houghton as being one of those White liberals who purport to speak for the Black people. I prefer to let him speak for himself. He does so effectively and better than I can do it. However, I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us in the course of this debate that he has received the terms of reference of the commission, that he has considered them and that he and the Government will give the green light to go ahead with what, I believe, can be important and valuable discussions, deliberations and investigations and which can contribute towards better relations in South Africa.

I fully accept the sincerity of the hon. the Minister. It is a fascinating experience to listen to him. His sincerity shines out like a light, but the trouble is that it shines rather like the light of a discotheque. It comes in a flashing mass of facts and figures of achievements, intentions and hopes. After I have listened to this for a while I tend to get a little bit dizzy in the same way as I do from the flashing lights of a discotheque. The problem is to sort out the facts from the hopes and the intentions. The problem is to sort out the facts from the fantasy. The hon. the Minister is justifiably proud, and I do not belittle the achievements for which he and his department are responsible. These are many, and I think all hon. members in the House welcome what has been achieved. But we want to see something more. I also welcome the realism contained in the speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Cooperation in respect of the magnitude of the task which lies ahead.

I am going to deal with one aspect of that—the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke also touched on it—and that is the position of the urban Blacks. There was a significant omission from the hon. the Minister’s speech yesterday and that is that he made no reference to the intangible aspirations of the Black people. He dealt with material progress, such as housing, money spent and the gross national product, but not with the intangible aspirations of the Black people. He did not deal with the respect for human dignity and the necessity of being accepted.

I said I was going to deal with the other aspect.

I hope the hon. the Minister will. I ask him to deal with this specifically. I want to warn him that there is a certain amount of cynicism that these material things are a pay-off for rejection, in the sense that the Government is prepared to spend money and to build houses as a quid pro quo for rejecting the Black people as part of the South African society. They want to know where they belong within the South African structure and what their constitutional place will be. I believe that one of the urgent issues is to clarify their constitutional position—the place within our constitutional structure of the Blacks of South Africa. I know that there are things in the pipeline, but what I want to emphasize is that when a decision has been taken, the hon. the Minister should act immediately. He cannot have the Blacks of South Africa left behind in the constitutional processes which are now in the pipeline, and I hope that the hon. the Minister can, even in this debate, give us an indication, or an assurance, that the Black peoples’ involvement in the constitutional debate and negotiation will be an immediate one and not an inferior or a secondary one, trailing along merely as “agterryers”.

In the brief time at my disposal, I should like to take a quick look at Soweto, which has been discussed at length. Whilst it is important, as the hon. member for Houghton said, that the money should be available, it is not the only requirement. [Interjections.] The hon. member asks what I know about it. I have been there and have talked to the people, and I want to say that I believe that what is just as important as money, is the involvement of the leadership in the spending of that money, so that the responsible leaders will themselves participate in the solution of problems. The alternative is that practical day-to-day problems become politicized by activists. We require other political outlets for political expression, not turning administrative issues into political controversy. There I agree that White politicians have a positive responsibility, but also a duty to help to eliminate the causes of grievances and dissatisfaction, and not just to inflame them. This entails removing artificial symbols, and one of those symbols is the 99-year leasehold scheme. The difference in practice between the 99-year leasehold and freehold is nil. There is no practical difference, but it has become symbolic of rejection, of being temporary, and I plead with the hon. the Minister not to be obsessed with old ideas, but to take away this symbol of rejection, this symbol which says: “You can be here for 99 years, but you are not permanent” and to give freehold title, because that is the basis for the sources of revenue for a city like Soweto. The hon. the Minister has asked us to treat this matter gently and I am not going to go blundering into it, but he is thinking solely in terms of rental and service charges. The basis is far wider, and freehold title, and all that goes with it, is part of that base. The estimated income per annum earned by Soweto residents is R650 million, but it is being spent outside Soweto. It is being spent in Johannesburg, and that money, too, should find its way back to the financing of Soweto. I welcome the indications of what is planned, but I want to point out that two weeks ago I got the figures, and in the last year, 1979 … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. He put certain questions to the hon. the Minister directly and the hon. the Minister will probably reply to them in the course of the debate.

I want to come back to a matter raised by the hon. member for Houghton and to concentrate mainly on influx control measures. In the past, the question of influx control measures has been the subject of heated discussion during debates on this Vote. It has been a sterile debate, because the standpoint of this side of the House and the standpoint of the Opposition have differed fundamentally, because it is the standpoint of the Opposition that there should be no influx control measures whatsoever, a standpoint which would in practice turn South Africa into a squatter camp, while this side of the House believes that there must be influx control measures, that a synthesis must be found between uncontrolled influx on the one hand and the creation of social facilities and a social infrastructure in the urban areas on the other hand. I do not want to discuss this matter any further with the hon. Opposition: I wish to address my remarks specifically to the hon. the Minister, and to enter into the following serious discussion with him concerning influx control measures.

The Riekert report made certain recommendations in connection with influx control measures. Before the hon. the Minister considers these influx control measures, I want to invite him to examine the situation in practice. We do not have a long way to go; we need only go and look at Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu and Crossroads. Do hon. members know what we shall see there? There is an enormous gap between policy and practice. There is such a gap between policy and practice that the illegal 23 000 inhabitants of Crossroads and the 50 000 illegal inhabitants of Langa and Nyanga can easily fit into this gap between policy and practice.

You cannot possibly carry it out.

In spite of section 10, which provides that an employer is not allowed to employ a Black man illegally, and in spite of the fact that 5 000 legally present Black workers are unemployed in this area, 70 000 Black workers from these four Black townships alone are being illegally employed today. Therefore I want to state without qualification that the presence of the illegally present Black people in these four Black residential areas is lowering the quality of life of the Blacks who are legally here. The fact of the matter is that the influx of Black people into the Peninsula has assumed dramatic proportions, so much so that nowhere else in South Africa—and I am stating this as a fact—are Black people living under conditions such as those found in these four townships. In the interests of the Black man himself I want to urge the hon. the Minister to consider this matter.

Because of the fact that there are 50 000 illegally present Black people on the labour market here today, I question the rationale behind the existence of the Coloured labour preference area, for under the present circumstances, the legally present Black man is being discriminated against. While the illegally present Black man is not subject to any control measures whatsoever, the legally present Black man is subject to (a) a preference labour policy and (b) section 3 of the Physical Planning Act. Therefore I want to request the hon. the Minister seriously to give attention to the request made by the Cape Community Council in 1979. I quote resolution No. 7(b) of Mr. Lubuwane: “To waive the work permit system as applicable in Cape Town.”

While I am on the subject of influx control measures, I want to state that as far as the Cape Peninsula is concerned, it is very difficult to enforce influx control in practice. I shall illustrate this with an example. I could mention hundreds of examples. This is a matter which deserves the serious attention of the hon. the Minister. If influx control measures are applied to a citizen of Transkei, a man from Crossroads and a man from the Ciskei, the fact is that the Transkei citizen may remain in the prescribed area for 14 days, the Ciskei citizen for only 72 hours and the Crossroads man indefinitely. It is absolutely impossible to enforce influx control under these circumstances.

However, the matter goes further. When the influx control measures are enforced, one has the position that the influx control measures do not actually serve the purpose for which they were introduced. I want to illustrate this with an example. Over the past three years, influx control measures have been applied to 118 000 Black people in the Western Cape. However, what happens in practice? When the people have been charged—I have great appreciation for the aid provided in this connection at the aid centres—they are fined and simply released. This does not solve any problems. It is a matter which merits serious attention, for on the one hand the Black people are being charged under influx control measures which do not work, and on the other hand they are suffering immeasurable frustration. This is a matter which merits the serious attention of the hon. the Minister.

The crux of this whole problem of the Black man in the Peninsula is the presence of the 100 000 illegally present Black people. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister: Is there a plan? Is there any idea about what should be done about the 100 000 illegally present Black people in the Western Cape? This is the crux of the matter. The answer to this question depends, firstly, on the abolition of the labour preference area; secondly, on a certain form of house-ownership; and thirdly, on the improvement of the quality of life of the legally present Black man. On the question of what is to be done with the 100 000 illegally present Black people in the Western Cape depends the improvement of the quality of life of all the Black people in the Peninsula. This is the naked truth which we have to face. If a sociologist can say something to an ethnologist, I say that this situation which exists in the Western Cape at the moment offers no firm foundation for healthy community development. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Bellville. All of us in the Western Cape are concerned about the situation with regard to the Black man in the Western Cape and that is why I think it is a good thing for a little time to be devoted to that subject too in the discussion of this Vote. I should very much like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Bellville has just said in referring to the Western Cape in particular. Sometimes we are reproached with adopting indefensible standpoints concerning the position of the Black people in the Western Cape.

A nation with a soul is immortal, but that undefined soul of a nation is linked to territory. Israel is the best example that I can think of in this regard. A very small percentage of that nation lives in Israel. However, Israel is the heartbeat of Judaism. In the days when they were dispersed, it was their belief in a promised land and in the resurrection of the root of Jesse that kept their hope and idealism alight and vibrant. Today they make sacrifices that few people and few nations are prepared to make for the survival of the territory to which the life of that nation is linked. They believe that God gave it to them, and that is why they build on it, even with a gun in one hand, even though many other people might think it is simply a piece of earth for which one would not take much trouble, not to mention fighting or dying for it.

Similarly, the Blacks in South Africa have their own territory that they will never filter away. It is the experience of the consolidation commission and political leaders who negotiate with these people, that the Black man does not want to give up his land. He simply wants more. The soul of the Black nation also resides in its territorial area.

At the insistence of the majority of the White people in this part of our country, and with the support of the White people throughout the entire country, the Western Cape has become the symbol of the homeland of the Whites in South Africa. There were no Black people here when the Whites arrived. This part of the country is shared by the Whites and the Coloureds, and we prefer to arrange matters here without claims being made by other nations or their citizens.

There were no White people in the Transvaal either.

This is the only section of our country where the Blacks are in the minority. The NP of the Cape made drastic congressional resolutions regarding the position of the Black man in this area in order to protect this heart-land. Those decisions concern matters like leasehold, influx, the labour preference policy, clearing up squatting and the repatriation of people who are here illegally. This is the background to our attitude on this matter.

Our belief in the value of home-ownership and our opposition to leasehold contradict one another. These interests clash with one another. In planning one’s survival, however, logic is not necessarily the norm and that is why we do not necessarily think about this matter in a reasonable way, but we allow ourselves to be led by the practical considerations. In this regard I want to remind hon. members of the old formula that politics is the science of the possible.

Apart from our own wishes, we have respect for the law and the wishes of others. The Blacks who have earned permanence in this area in terms of section 10, have certain rights and claims towards which we are not totally unsympathetic, but these people can do themselves a favour by helping to get rid of the large number of people who are here illegally and those who are not really needed in this area. Why must Black people be brought in from outside whilst those who are here legally are unemployed? Why do these Blacks not help themselves and us? If there are 1 000 of them here who are economically active, surely they will be much better off than when there are 100 000 here, half of whom are here illegally. The quality of their life is in their own hands and the time has come for them too to share in solving their problems and to stop simply making demands and making threats.

It is just as important for the Whites as for the Blacks to have their own territory and right to self-determination, and we are guarding this with jealous vigilance. These people must help us. The department is doing its best and is trying to deal with the situation to the best of its ability, but it remains merely dealing with the situation and does not really provide a solution. If I have the time, I shall give examples of this.

It is alleged—and the hon. member for Bellville has actually proved it by way of figures that he quoted—that there are easily just as many illegal Blacks as legal Blacks present in the Western Cape. As long as this is the case, the Nationalists of the Western Cape will at best view matters like leasehold and the removal of the labour preference policy with a jaundiced eye, and the Blacks who are here legally will have to suffer the discomfort of too many guests who stay too long.

Perhaps we should look at possible solutions for this. To begin with, I want to say that there are no instant solutions and new formulas for this. Firstly, I think that the Blacks who are here legally must resist those who are here illegally, who cause them, too, to be viewed with disfavour. I understand that an increasing degree of impatience prevails in this regard amongst those Blacks who are legally here in the Western Cape. Secondly, I think the time has come for minimum fines to be laid down for employers who employ Blacks who are here illegally. Thirdly, I think that the Black labour quota of the employer who is found guilty of such an offence, should be curtailed. Fourthly, I think he should be held responsible for the repatriation costs of such a Black worker. Fifthly, I believe that repatriation must follow the conviction of Blacks who are here illegally, as well as the conviction of contract labourers for certain more serious offences, or when they are repeatedly convicted for offences. Issuing travel documents to foreign citizens should make repatriation easier than it has been in the past. In the sixth place, I believe that greater control should be exercised over contract labourers, who come here and then leave their employment, or sometimes act in such a way as to be discharged from their employment, upon which they simply disappear in the city or in the community. This would be an additional discouragement to importing Black labour from outside. In the seventh place, I believe that the recruitment of Black labour outside the area must not be permitted, whilst conditions of unemployment prevail locally.

If all these things are carried out successfully, a vacuum will arise here in the Western Cape, which will have to be filled by White and Coloured labour. Filling this vacuum is an integral part of the process of creating it, and that is why, in the eighth place, a co-ordinated, planned operation by the Department of Co-operation and Development, the Department of Manpower Utilization and the Department of Coloured Relations, is an absolute prerequisite in this regard. The hon. the Minister and the Department of Co-operation and Development cannot solve the problem alone. His hon. colleagues, to whom I have just referred, will have to help too, as well as the Whites and the Coloureds in the Western Cape and those Blacks who say they have the right to live here permanently.

I want to make a serious request of the hon. the Minister this afternoon, and ask him please to take the initiative in launching a co-ordinated effort of this kind. He will need the assistance of his other two colleagues that I have mentioned in order to do so.

I said that the State is dealing with the problem, but not solving it. I just want to refer briefly to two examples of this.

In the first place, a maximum fine of R500 is imposed on an employer who employs an illegal Black person. In practice, however, the fines do not approach anything near that maximum amount. In a recent interview with Die Burger, which was published on 20 March 1980, the hon. the Minister said that employers pay an admission of guilt amounting to R100. If they appear in court, the fine is generally decreased further to approximately R30 or R40. I understand that, in certain cases in which the same employer commits quite a number of offences, the court combines the number of offences to form one charge and that in such cases the employer gets off much more lightly. Therefore, in this regard, the State is failing in what it seeks to do. That is why the time has come to consider a minimum fine. In fact, that is actually what the NP congress asked for as early as in 1978.

The second aspect to which I should like to refer, has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Bellville too. It is the problem concerning what happens to illegal Blacks or Black offenders who are convicted, once they have paid their fines or served their sentence. One finds in practice that in most cases, these people remain in the area. According to the interview with the hon. the Minister in Die Burger, 7 900 were charged and 5 700 were convicted last year. Over the past six years there have been 117 600 prosecutions. Therefore, the rate has decreased, but the problem has definitely not been solved yet.

Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate so far, I have heard a lot of discussion in relation to Soweto, to kwaZulu and to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. As yet, the Eastern Cape has not figured in this debate at all.

There are many things related to the Eastern Cape, which need to figure in this debate. There are issues such as the Walmer location and the Fingo village. I apologize to the hon. member for Albany. He did raise this matter. Then there is also Glenmore, Thornhill, the situation of the Ciskei independence, the report of the Quail Commission, etc. All these things are very worthy of debate.

I believe, however, that more important than any of these—and I should like to draw this to the attention of the hon. the Minister—is the filling of hungry stomachs in the Ciskei. This is more important than political rights, electrification, houses or anything else. More important than any of these things is the filling of hungry stomachs in the Ciskei. It should not happen by hand-outs because that detracts from pride. It should be achieved by way of creating job opportunities. This is what is necessary.

For three years I have been pleading the case for the Eastern Cape, and for three years absolutely nothing has happened. Last year in the debate on this Vote I lodged a plea for a number of things to happen in the East London area, as did the hon. member for King William’s Town. I want to quote, from column 464 of volume 82, the debates of the Standing Committees, what the hon. the Minister himself said last year. We have heard many wonderful words from him thus far, in this debate, about the wonderful vision that he has. I now want to quote his words back at him and then ask him what has happened and what he has done. He said—

One meal a day is all he asks! Those, then, were the hon. the Minister’s words last year. He also went on to say, and I quote from column 465—

That was the situation, but what has happened since that date? Nothing! [Interjections.]

Absolute nonsense!

All right, things have happened, but in the main they have been negative. The Government keeps telling us about the positive things it has done, but in this case only negative things have happened. We have had plenty of inquiries. We have had commissions galore, but no positive steps. We have been told by the hon. the Minister of Industries that export process zones are out. That is one of the things I asked for last year, something to which the hon. the Minister said “Yes”. I also pleaded for better Escom tariff rates for the area, but what has happened? Escom tariff rates in the area have been increased by 71/2%. I pleaded for additional concessions for Berlin, but there have been no additional concessions for Berlin. I finally said that if these things did not happen, we should hand over the Berlin industrial area to the Ciskei to ensure that that area would obtain the right sort of concessions, the concessions that are available for Butterworth, Dimbaza and Sada. I believe that the time for promises is long past. The time for action is overdue, and action now can only be in that one form, and that is to have the Berlin industrial area handed to the Ciskei for their development, because the jobs are vitally necessary. One must not forget that Mdantsane is one of the biggest Black towns in South Africa, and it is destined to become twice as big as it currently is. When the 30 000 houses are built in the Potsdam area, Mdantsane will more than double in size, and yet industrial development has been virtually negligible.

Not only should the Berlin area be handed to the Ciskei, but I also believe that the concessions currently available to Berlin should be extended to the industrial area in East London and surrounding East London, because once Berlin has been included in the Ciskei, the border area comes that much closer to the port of East London. One could then give those additional concessions. This is a subject which I do not think the Government can sit on any longer. It has, as I have said, been three years. It was the former Prime Minister who created a commission to look into unemployment in the East London metropolitan area. That was in April 1978. Two long years have passed since then, and when one is talking about hunger and deprivation, one must think of the kinds of personal tragedy that there have been in the two years whilst this Government has been making up its mind, two years, as I have said, of hunger and deprivation. I believe the hon. the Minister has a case …

Now you are exaggerating.

I believe this very sincerely. I should like that hon. member at some time to come with me to Mdantsane, Fingo village, Glenmore and the Thornhill-Sada area. Let them come and have a look at the sort of situation that exists there, because it is not improving but getting worse. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows this. He has been to the area.

I have been there myself.

Yes, the hon. the Minister has been there too. The hon. the Minister now acknowledges that he has been there. He cannot but be aware of the problems.

Of course I am aware of them.

What we want is some answers to these problems. When are we going to get these answers? We have been told time after time that there is a commission investigating the position and that we are going to get an answer after the commission has reported. We got the commission’s report on export process zones and nothing happened about that. I believe that the report of the University of Port Elizabeth has already been put on the State President’s desk, and I am sure the hon. the Minister has seen it. Certainly, the hon. the Minister of Industries must have seen it. I may be incorrect in this, but I think it has been there in excess of a month, but as yet there has been no firm answer on the situation.

In the time remaining to me, I want to turn to another organization, namely the Mdantsane Special Organization. This is an organization to develop housing and an infrastructure at Mdantsane. It has White and Black employees. It gets its funds from the Department of Co-operation and Development. The East London municipality acts as the agent for the department to pay the staff, for which it gets an agency fee. Employees of this organization are regarded as temporary employees. Despite the fact that some of them have been working for this organization for as long as 15 or 16 years, they are still temporary employees. As a result, they are nothing. They have no organization they can turn to to fight their case. They are not members of Saame. The Labour Bureau will not act for them and they are not part of the Civil Service. They have no mouthpiece and no bargaining power. In 1978 they got an increase of only 5%. In 1979 they got no increase at all. In 1980 they got 7½% in January. However, the Civil Service and municipal employees got far greater increases over this period. They do not get the territorial allowance which State employees in the Ciskei get. There is no group insurance. There is no pension, even though some of them have worked there for 16 years. Their annual leave was cut from three weeks to two weeks over Christmas and they had to take one week later in the year. In 1979 they were put on a three-day week. From June to September 1979 they were able to work only a three-day week. I wrote to the hon. the Minister on 20 August last year. Ultimately I received a reply dated 25 March 1980. I sent another letter on 6 December 1979 and I want to read out a few paragraphs from this letter from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely amazed that the hon. member for East London North now drags the question of Berlin and its inclusion into Ciskei into this debate. He knows perfectly well that this whole issue is at the moment the subject of an in-depth study by a consolidation committee. He should know that.

What does that have to do with industrialization?

But the hon. member wants the ground handed over to Ciskei. It is completely wrong to plead for that here. He had his chance with the Consolidation Committee. Why did he not make use of that opportunity?

I was not allowed to speak to the Consolidation Committee.

The hon. member could.

*Actually, I wish to go on to another subject. During the course of last year, Black committees were established which did very valuable work. They were organized into regional committees to deliberate on specific matters and in general and to make recommendations on how they saw their present and future needs, aspirations and development. These were urban Blacks in particular. Some of the recommendations which emerged have already been implemented. I wish to draw the intention of the board to those matters which may be regarded as important landmarks.

Before doing so, however, I wish to convey a brief word of thanks and appreciation to everybody who co-operated in the extremely fruitful exercise in which the six regional committees were engaged. Blacks as well as Whites, officials as well as members of the public, applied themselves to this task with devotion.

At the outset, before any misunderstanding can arise, I wish to place an important point beyond all doubt. The present Government is in favour of separate schools and separate townships for the various ethnic groups, not in a spirit of arrogance or of superiority, but in a spirit of co-operation and for the sake of the elimination of areas of friction. Consequently, the Government does not hesitate to re-affirm that it is steadfastly and resolutely proceeding with its policy of self-determination for all the various peoples, the development of all these peoples and the protection of minority groups.

When I say this, I must point out at the same time that the White man will not negotiate on his own self-determination, the preservation of his identity and a say in his own Parliament; on the understanding, however, that great possibilities are foreseen in a confederation and constellation of States in Southern Africa.

We are engaged on a large-scale in implementing certain of the recommendations of the committees in a ministerial and departmental context, but actually I wish to direct the attention of the House to a few of the more important recommendations of the committees which are in the process of being implemented.

As far as housing is concerned, the relevant committee makes the point that the housing problem can be directly linked to the population explosion as a contributory factor. The committee further requests the Government to accept family planning and bring this home to everybody through existing Governmental institutions.

Order! Hon. members in the Opposition benches are conversing too loudly.

We are sorry about that, Sir.

I am also sorry about that. [Interjections.]

There is also an appeal that the urban Black community should accept its responsibility as far as family planning is concerned. As far as the West Rand and the Orange-Vaal Administration Areas are concerned, the committee requests that in collaboration with the community councils, land should be made available to private organizations for township development. This is a very interesting idea, particularly when one thinks that it could also make a contribution towards eliminating our housing shortage. This is definitely a matter that is receiving serious attention.

There is a third recommendation that is of importance. In order to facilitate the acquisition of a leasehold right, methods are now being applied that are aimed at reducing the time and costs connected with the surveying of stands. We have already made very great progress with that in the department.

There has also been a plea for more economic opportunities. In regard to the operation of filling stations, Black entrepreneurs can now negotiate directly with the oil companies for the establishment and the operation of filling stations for their own gain, but subject to the availability of premises. It has already been established that light industries and service industries can be established in Black townships. In fact, the Small Business Development Corporation intends assisting small entrepreneurs in Soweto in this regard. The promotion of economic activities, inter alia, the creation of business centres, including departmental stores, and participation by other population groups on a 49:51 basis, has already been approved and is being implemented with great success.

In the business centres of the Black townships, any Black entrepreneur could make provision for the operation of banks, building societies, financial institutions, offices for professional people, and so forth. It could even take place by way of a city-centre.

We have also received recommendations in connection with local government. One such recommendation—and this is being met by the declared intention of the Government—is that the Community Councils should be elevated to full municipal status and be vested with functions that would be of an even wider scope than the sphere of local authorities. The necessary legislation is already being drafted and we are hoping, by this means, to give effect in the near future to the idea of Community Councils with greater powers than even our White municipalities. Then, we are eagerly awaiting the contents of the Browne Report from which, we hope, we shall obtain a solution in connection with the acquisition of additional funds, a problem with which not only White municipalities, but also these Black Community Councils are struggling.

Recommendations have also been made on the transport facilities existing in our Black townships. It has been recommended that Black townships should be planned and initiated in such a way that roads and railway lines would be kept in mind at all times. Black drivers of heavy motor vehicles are, to an increasing extent, becoming part of our daily road utilization pattern and there is also a request for rest facilities for them. I am of the opinion that this is a fair request by these people. They handle very big and heavy machinery and it is only fair that they should expect that there should be rest facilities for them on their journeys. Other aspects affecting transport about which the committees have also made recommendations, were the need for shelters, toilets, waiting rooms and kiosks for bus passengers at bus terminals and areas of congestion such as the longer platforms at Railway stations. These matters are being followed up by the organizations concerned. As far as Soweto in particular is concerned, the relevant committee recommends that there should be another investigation of the possibility of a direct rail link with the West Rand, a return route deep into Soweto, and other essential additional connections. These matters are being looked into to ascertain whether these proposals are viable ones.

Some of these committees make an earnest plea that it is essential to have thorough consultation with the people involved, including the Community Councils, before bus fares are increased. I am of the opinion that this is quite an interesting and very sensible recommendation. A committee of the Department of Co-operation and Development is considering the implementation of increased travelling fares, and attention is already being given to the provision of information.

Some of the committees are pleading, for example, for a modern and faster train service for the mass conveyance of workers at reasonable tariffs, and also for subsidized tariffs. This matter is receiving constant attention from the Railways, but the necessary funds and the economic viability of this is a material factor.

The action of the department in appointing these committees, has shown very clearly that the Government is always eager to consult with these people whenever they have problems and to give them a say whenever their problems are being considered. These committees have done very valuable work for their people, work which we as Whites would hardly have been able to do so well as they have done.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. the hon. the Deputy Minister for the sound contribution he has made here. It also affords me the opportunity of proceeding to deal with a subject which relates to Black youth movements.

I think it is a matter of substantial importance in the present circumstances. Last year the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development were requested to make provision for assistance and advice to the national States in respect of the need for the establishment of Black youth movements. Within the very short space of time from September last year up to now, the department has responded by establishing a Youth Actions Branch within the department with the object of advising national States on the establishment of national youth movements in the various States in due course. One could say that the need for the mobilization of the youth as such is probably a fairly universal phenomenon and that it is not necessarily confined to developing countries alone, but that it also manifests itself in developed countries. It probably originates from the fact that a certain phenomenon amongst the youth is related to the problem of a lack of discipline and patriotism, and often to unemployment or mere idleness as well. This phenomenon also manifests itself specifically in certain African countries. From studies undertaken in this regard, it appeared that it was a general trend for youth movements to be established after some African countries had gained independence, mainly to promote certain political objectives after independence.

However, the Youth Actions Branch established by the department exclusively for the purpose of advising the national States in respect of the youth outside the context of school—in other words, not in the context of organized education, but outside the context of education—and also at post-school level has, in my opinion, done a considerable amount of work in the short space of time up to now. The exclusive object of the branch is to react to the requests and the needs of the national States and to render assistance through the national States as and when the needs are identified. So, the task of the branch is not of an initiatory nature, but merely to render assistance when this is required.

It is interesting to note that in various States, youth movements have already been established or that efforts are being made in that regard. In the Ciskei, the organization known as Intsika Yesizwe, has already been established. In kwaZulu, the Inkatha Youth Brigade is already in existence. The Southern Ndebele have gone so far as to consider possible legislation to establish a compulsory youth organization as against a voluntary organization. At present Kangwane is looking into this matter, as is Gazankulu. There seems to be a general interest on the part of the various national States in this regard.

I also wish to pay tribute to the relevant officials of the department rendering assistance in connection with this specific matter. I can also make mention of the fact that a visit was paid to Malawi last year which included a visit to an organization known as the Malawi Young Pioneers during which useful information was obtained. Representatives of seven different national States accompanied officials on this visit and I think that in this process, sound advice was obtained which can be fed back to the various Black States to good effect.

If we consider a study that has been undertaken to establish how youth movements are faring and what their contributions are particularly to the advancement of a developing country, it appears that there are six fields in particular in which youth movements can make a contribution to the development of the community on a wider level. These six objectives, which one is able to identify, are the following: In the first place, it is to provide employment, preferably in the rural areas, for unemployed post-school youths. In the second place, it is to train and establish farmers, on an individual basis as well as on a co-operative basis. In the third place, it is to train entrepreneurs and to establish viable business undertakings. In the fourth place, it is to perform constructive and profitable work as a contribution to Government schemes or to cover personal training and other costs in that way. In the fifth place, it is to promote community development among the local population by introducing new ideas, organizing and stimulating the community and improving general living conditions. In the sixth place, it is to produce loyal and involved citizens of the State, to promote hard work and discipline and enthusiasm for the task at hand.

These six objectives emerge from an analysis of the manifestation of youth movements in developing countries. I think some of these objectives could serve a very useful purpose if they were to be applied in our own national States.

However, it is not only in respect of the national States that work is being done in this regard, but also in respect of the urban areas, where the Administration Boards, in collaboration with the Community Councils, are already doing excellent work at the present time. For example, with the assistance of parents, these bodies have already embarked on organizing weekend camps and even camps lasting one week, so that pupils may be removed from everyday conditions and also receive useful training in the camps.

I wish to conclude by saying that I think it is important that one apply a certain set of criteria when it comes to the extension of the youth movement. In this regard, one may certainly say that the task of a youth movement is usually directed at achieving a manifestation or realization of the national aspirations of a particular people. In the present case, and in respect of our national States, it is often the case that the order is reversed and that the youth movements are necessary for the very purpose of awakening that national awareness. I think the important thing is, however, that it should ultimately lead to the position where the youth movements would give direction to the national aspirations of the people. Then, it is important that tribal interests and tribal ties should not take the place of the national aspirations, but should be subsidiary to them; in other words, that the national aspirations should prevail over the particular tribal ties or tribal interests.

I also think that in the process of developing national youth movements, the emphasis throughout should be placed on the needs of the community itself and that it should be identified with the community. It is interesting to note that we already have the distinguishing feature in that the Southern Ndebele are proposing a compulsory movement as against a voluntary organization such as has been established elsewhere, for example in the Ciskei and kwaZulu. I think what is important in this regard, is that the particular needs of a particular people in its particular constitution should be identified.

A final criterion which one could set, is the promotion of their own symbol, their own national flag, their own coat-of-arms, their own emblem and their own history, and to make these, too, part of the aspirations of this movement so that the national pride in the national States may be awakened and thrive.

In conclusion I want to say that one often notices danger signs in youth movements. It may be that a youth movement is misused for political or other purposes, but I think the benefits justify the risk of promoting a youth movement for the benefit of a developing people in our particular context.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Johannesburg West. I fully agree with him on the importance of youth movements. It is in this context where the character of young people is formed and where they develop a devotion to their own culture.

I wish to come back to something that has often been said here today, namely that we on this side of the House have irrevocably committed ourselves to the emancipation of nations, as we see them within the framework of a constellation of nations. It has clearly been spelled out here that the economic stability and economic viability of these States are prerequisites for the success of the plan as a whole. Consequently, it is our task to do whatever we can to give effect to that.

That is why I am actually using the name of this department, the Department of Cooperation and Development, as a theme for my speech today. I firmly believe that we have so much that is constructive and positive to talk about that this could vastly overshadow everything that is negative. If we ask ourselves what we could do to make these homelands economically viable, it can be stated that this is a noble task which could keep us very usefully occupied. There is a Chinese proverb that if one gives another person a fish, one has given him a meal, but that if one has taught him to catch fish, one has created a future for him. I think this is of primary importance in dealing with the development of the homelands of South Africa, since it is not our task to keep these people with hand-outs, but rather to make them self-supporting.

I wish to say a few words about agriculture in the homelands and about what has already been done in that field. If we consider the homelands in general, we note that 76% of them are situated in the eastern region of Southern Africa. So, these States are situated in a climatic zone in which the rainfall varies between 500 and 1 260 mm per annum. A total of 54% of the agricultural potential of South Africa is situated in the homelands, but up to 1978, only 5,6% of this was properly developed. We also note that in many of these homelands the agricultural potential is largely untapped. It is interesting to note that whereas agriculture produces 23% of the gross domestic product of the homelands, 66% of the economically active population of the homelands are employed and accommodated in agriculture. In other words, agriculture in a homeland is not only of economic value, but also of socio-economic value, and consequently all facets of agriculture have to be viewed in perspective.

In this regard I wish to refer to the irrigation schemes in the Ciskei, for example, which were developed with the assistance of private entrepreneurs and where people who formerly used to live in abject poverty, are now being offered the opportunity of being to a large extent self-supporting. These are things on which we can look back with pride.

I wish to refer in particular to one of our homelands which became independent recently, approximately two years ago, namely Bophuthatswana. In Bophuthatswana, we see an example of what neighbouring countries with the correct attitude and the correct approach could do to make their people economically self-supporting in the field of agriculture. I wish to point out that a few years ago, Bophuthatswana had to import 90% of her food requirements.

Bophuthatswana is at present engaged in planning and as far as its food requirements are concerned, it will be wholly independent in 1986. The chances are also very good that after that, Bophuthatswana will be able to earn foreign exchange by means of exports. What is this great progress in Bophuthatswana attributable to? I attribute this to a number of things. In the first place, President Mangope realized the importance of agriculture and immediately started developing the potential of the agricultural areas of Bophuthatswana. I have just stated the average rainfall in the eastern homelands. Here, we are dealing with one of the more westerly homelands of which the rainfall is much less favourable than in the others as far as agricultural production is concerned, and yet these people established an agricultural co-operative in 1976. I am now referring to the Sheila-Verdwaal and the Mooifontein agricultural co-operatives. These agricultural co-operatives were established in 1976. In 1978, the Bophuthatswana Agricultural Corporation was established. Under the able management of Mr. Hendrik van Zyl of Setlagole, this corporation has become a major driving force in the effort to place the agriculture of Bophuthatswana on a sound footing.

I wish to pay tribute now and express my thanks to people who have set us an excellent example what could be done in this regard, and that is the North-Western Cooperative with its head office at Lichtenburg. In the first place, this co-operative made available money on favourable and fair terms to the Sheila-Verdwaal and the Mooifontein co-operatives to enable the farmers to become established in production. This co-operative also gave them technological assistance and seconded some of its own staff to go and work there and to provide the necessary extension services. We have seen how, during this period, under fairly dry conditions, the crops of the people in that maize-growing area have been increased from two to three bags per morgen (or rather, ½ ton per hectare), to 2,5 tons per hectare.

These people believe that the chief should own the land. Although this land is leased to the individual farmer, he and his family are responsible for the manual labour that has to be performed on it, while his co-operative is responsible for the necessary infrastructure, the harvesting of the crops and the marketing. This whole business is managed on a sound economic basis.

This noble task demands of us that we should continue to care for people and make them aware of the fact that if one utilizes the soil correctly, one can secure one’s own future and help to make one’s own people independent. That is something worthwhile. To me, that is the guarantee that the policy of the NP is based on sound principles and that we will ultimately succeed. There are indeed problems ahead, there is no doubt about that. However, if a person is down and one helps him to his feet or covers him with a blanket, one alleviates his suffering. If we help such a person to his feet, however, and help him to progress, we enable him to work out a future for himself. That is what we are doing here. Consequently, I wish to express my appreciation to those people, to those agricultural co-operatives and to the many other people who have rendered assistance in this field, also from outside the borders of South Africa. It will not only promote good neighbourliness between countries, but also promote trust with a view to the ultimate establishment of a constellation of States in Southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to some of the matters that have been raised here. Before doing so, however, I first want to deal with certain general matters, matters I promised to deal with yesterday. I want to thank the hon. member for Heilbron sincerely for his positive contribution on the fine subject of co-operation and development. It is true that if we would co-operate in the Republic of South Africa, we would find that so many of our problems would be so much more easily solved. After all, this debate is also taking place against the background of the fact that we are faced with great and difficult problems and challenges, specifically in the Department of Co-operation and Development.

In this connection, the Black people have a beautiful saying to which I should like to draw attention. It boils down to this: One finger cannot lift a boiled mealie kernel out of the pot. Well, you just try lifting a boiled mealie kernel out of the pot with one finger! The saying actually means that people have to work together. Therefore I should very much like to endorse what the hon. member for Heilbron said in this connection. That is a lesson we all have to learn. Only then shall we achieve positive results.

I was Minister of Sport and Recreation for seven years. I always said at the time that we should normalize our sport in South Africa. There were people who said that “normalize” was not a good word. Hon. members know the history of this. What happened? What happened is clear to all today. I still believe that under the NP Government, without the surrender of any principles and in the interests of all the people in the Republic of South Africa, sport has developed in a way of which we are reaping the benefits today. I do not think anyone can say today that we have lost anything in the process. We have only gained in this process. The Lions are here, and we are all enjoying it. So all is well in the sporting field.

I want to emphasize this afternoon that we have to normalize race relations in South Africa. It is essential. Together with the Department of Co-operation and Development, I am trying to normalize race relations in South Africa as far as it is humanly possible. We on this side of the House are very definitely doing this, on the basis that our policy and approach have an ethnic foundation. Therefore we can normalize race relations on an ethnic basis. We can do so within the framework of the twelve-point plan summarizing the Government’s policy. We can also do so while clearly emphasizing certain matters which we say are not negotiable to us, matters I shall come to in the course of my speech. For example, we believe that it is essential that every people should live together, that each should have its own territory. We believe that every people should have its own schools and its own autonomous governing bodies. To us these three things are not negotiable. Therefore we can normalize relations in South Africa on a firm basis, on firm principles and a firm policy. [Interjections.]

What are we doing in my department? Against the background I have sketched, I want to quote a few examples. We have spoken before in this House about the 72-hour provision and about the Riekert report, its recommendations, for example, how the report showed that the 72-hour provision and everything that went with it was hurtful and discriminatory. I do not want to cover the same ground again. All I can say at the moment is that it will only be possible to take a Government decision about the 72-hour provision when the test, the investigation, we are carrying out in two places has continued for about six months, and the results, the statistics, have been thoroughly checked. Before this happens, there will be consultation with the interested parties. This is considered absolutely essential.

May I ask a question?

Just a moment. The hon. member can ask me a question in a moment. No one on this side of the House has ever said that one could ever abolish influx control, nor has the Riekert report. Therefore no one could have been under that impression. The Black people understand that influx control is essential. However, we are dealing here with an extremely important matter, i.e. how to make influx control more effective and humane, how to remove hurtful discrimination. We are making good progress in this direction, and all I want to say, therefore, is that my department and I do not intend to shelve this matter. We are giving our full attention to it and we shall report to the House again when we have more information available to us. With this I hope I have replied to the hon. member for Houghton as well.

No, you have not.

Then the hon. member can ask me again presently. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, are we to gather from what the hon. the Minister has said that the police are not arresting people for being in the urban areas of Bloemfontein and Pretoria longer than 72 hours?

Mr. Chairman, we sent out circulars to those two places in December and January in which we explained in detail how this whole matter was to be implemented there. My information is that it is being implemented in such a way that it is working and we are expecting the first results fairly soon. We are trying to implement it in the most humane way imaginable. That is what we are all trying to do. We have had consultations with the police and we have their co-operation in this connection, for which I want to express my thanks, praise and appreciation. Surely the fact that we are discussing these things in this spirit in this House has an effect throughout the RSA. Surely it does not go unnoticed. In this way, relations are being improved in this country, and we should be very grateful for that.

A good non-answer.

The second matter I want to discuss, before coming to another very important matter, is the 99-year leasehold system and the house-ownership system. The 99-year leasehold system has begun to gain acceptance in practice over the last year. It is gaining momentum and it is clear that the problems of implementation have to a certain extent been overcome. The administrative machinery has been provided, and an important amendment has been made to a regulation this month, to the effect that a person wishing to obtain leasehold does not have to shoulder the capital burden of a pro rata contribution to the infrastructure. In other words, his leasehold burden —financially speaking—is being considerably lightened, because he does not have to find a deposit, for example, and some of the hon. members discussed this at length yesterday. The hon. member for Walmer said how difficult the people found it to obtain a deposit. Financially speaking, the position has now been alleviated, for they no longer have to find a deposit if they have to take out a mortgage bond for the amount, or to pay the full amount out of their own pockets. They compensate for this by paying for the provision of services on the ordinary monthly basis. The land value, which is also a component of the leasehold right, is not merely determined in an arbitrary way. It is determined in such a way as to bring it as close to the market value as possible, as soon as possible. I am making an important announcement concerning this matter. Black people will therefore be able, either among themselves or with prospective mortgagees, to participate in leasehold transactions in which the amount of the lease will be determined by the market mechanism. For this reason, leasehold is also an investment, for one knows, after all, that the value of something like that goes up, not down.

Some hon. members speak very lightly about things which are not being done, about things which are not being achieved. If only I could tell them about all the hard work that was done by this department to make possible the announcement I have just made. If only I could indicate the problems that were involved. If I could do that, I would be telling a splendid success story about what lies behind the scenes. We have now arrived at a leasehold system for Black people in this country which makes it possible to do all these things. The monthly payments are more or less the same as those for ordinary house-ownership schemes, for example. So matters are being greatly facilitated for him within striking distance. Therefore we are making great progress in this connection.

One thing must be kept in mind, however. Obtaining a right to land by means of a title deed and taking out a mortgage is something which is still foreign to the vast majority of Blacks. Up to 20 March this year, 176 leaseholds had been registered, and there are 826 applications in the pipeline. Under the house-ownership schemes, 40 731 houses have been sold to Blacks in the PWV area. I really think that my department, in cooperation with the administration boards and the community councils, has successfully brought home to the Black people the pride of house-ownership, and that this would extend even further in the future in respect of this leasehold scheme. Good progress has also been made with the upgrading of certain Black townships. Planning committees are actively giving attention to the modernization of Black townships. I may mention Atteridgeville, Mamelodi and Alexandra as examples. Others could be added to this list. There are other Black townships that are receiving special attention in this connection, such as the one at Graaff-Reinet, where the Building Research Institute of the CSIR is replanning the Black residential area with a view to upgrading it. I have a vivid recollection of my visit to that area as Deputy Minister of this department eight or nine years ago. I shall never forget the feeling that came over me then. I felt that we would never be able to solve this problem. I really felt that way. When I went there again recently and saw what was happening at the Building Research Institute, I was amazed. The progress is there for all to see. Excellent results are being obtained in this connection. Therefore we are making good progress with the leasehold system.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister what it costs a person on average—apart from the overall cost—to obtain 99-year leasehold?

I cannot answer that off-hand. It also varies from one place to another. However, we have considerably lowered the cost of surveying, etc. Our whole exercise was aimed at bringing the monthly payments as close as possible to the payments he would have made over 30 years under the house-ownership scheme. In this we have largely succeeded. That was the gist of my announcement here. However, the actual amount varies from one place to another. Therefore I do not want to mention a specific amount. If I did that, it would not be an accurate reflection of the true state of affairs.

I have now told hon. members about two very positive things. Now I come to a third aspect. This is a very delicate matter, but I should like to talk about it, because it is no use closing our eyes to problems. We must face problems squarely and discuss them. Then we shall find solutions to them. I am referring to the announcement I made earlier concerning the fact that a purposeful action had been initiated to remove what I call hurtful discriminatory provisions. Of course, this is a delicate matter. To this end we recently appointed a retired senior official of my department to investigate this matter. I am referring to Mr. F. B. Durrant, a highly esteemed man. He is the former Chief Commissioner of the Witwatersrand. In my opinion, he is still one of our greatest authorities on Black legislation. He was instructed to identify the provisions he regarded as falling in this category and to make proposals about them. I can assure the House that much has already been done in this respect. Why am I talking about these things, as well as the 72-hour restriction and the 99-year leasehold system? I am doing it in order to say that anyone who alleges that the initiatives we talked about last year have disappeared into the quicksand simply does not know what is going on. We are engaged in reform. A thorough-going process of reform is taking place in this country. My department is engaged in it, and so are other departments. Therefore we must not be accused of having allowed the initiatives to fizzle out, because that is not true. These initiatives are gaining in momentum. That is where our strength lies. So we are solving the problems of this country with the blessing of the Almighty.

Naturally, one does not want to publicize all the things concerning which recommendations have already been made for the removal of hurtful discriminatory statutory provisions, because there are too many accusations of promises allegedly not being kept. Nevertheless, I want to make the objectives clear. It is essential that this be done. As the recommendations come through, they are considered from time to time, not only by my department, but also by outside authorities. I should not like to embarrass the department or these authorities by making any premature announcements. Therefore I want to handle this matter as responsibly as possible. Also, I would not like to create false expectations among the general Black public, for after all, these are people whose interests I try to serve. I really have their interests at heart. Therefore it would grieve me if I were to create expectations among them which could not be realized. I do not want to do that under any circumstances. I do not want to do it now, I did not want to do it in the past, and I hope I shall never do it in the future. Therefore I should like to give the assurance that the things that have been initiated will be carried through and that I shall personally do everything in my power to ensure that this happens. I want to say that all recommendations will receive proper consideration and will be implemented as soon as possible. Why should we wait if we are able to remove something which is hurtful? It is not in my nature or in that of the department.

Hurtful discriminatory provisions may be found either in our policy and departmental instructions—and in that case the recommendations can be implemented fairly rapidly—or in our legislation. In the latter case, statutory amendments first have to be drafted and finalized, and this is a time-consuming process. We are engaged in a great task here, not in a small one. Provisions of this kind may also be found in regulations, and in that case, it may be possible to draw up and promulgate amendments expeditiously, depending on the enabling statutory provision.

It is very difficult for me to give a definition of the type of hurtful discriminatory provision one has in mind. My department is best qualified to try to define it, because we work with the Black people every day. When it comes to such a definition, I rely largely on …

Have a look at the Cillié Commission’s report.

We are not all as clever as that hon. member. The only difficulty is that we have to solve the problems while that hon. member is causing further problems which we then have to solve.

All I said was that you should have a look at the Cillié Commission’s report. That contains the answer.

In defining a hurtful discriminatory provision, one relies largely on the sense of justice and fairness of the people involved and one is guided by this. Broadly speaking, it is our aim, when a matter is covered or can be covered by a measure affecting all sectors of the population, to accommodate the sectional needs of the Black public under this measure and to consider an ad hoc or independent measure or provision for the Black man only as a final alternative. This is the norm we are applying in this connection. I think hon. members will agree with me that it is a good and reasonable norm.

By this I do not mean to imply that the many existing provisions in laws and regulations which affect Black people only are bad or wrong or that all of them necessarily amount to hurtful discrimination or are impossible to motivate. On the contrary, we are still building a nation in this country, and there has definitely been a reason for every provision. After all, I have been directly concerned with this matter in some form for more than 30 years. There has been a specific reason for it, and perhaps no one knows this better than I, who have worked with it for so many years. All we have to ask ourselves from time to time is whether the motivations which applied years ago, when these provisions were introduced, are still valid after the process of development in South Africa as we have all experienced and still are experiencing it. If not, that provision must be revised. Hon. members know from their own experience how easily one accumulates all kinds of rubbish if one does not take stock from time to time. Therefore I do not regard the actions initiated in my department as being unique. On the contrary, I expect them to be a continuous service. Therefore the House must not expect that when a particular Bill is introduced or a particular set of regulations is drafted, that will be the end of the exercise. It is a continuous process. Nor would I want my department to do this important work in isolation. On the contrary, I welcome public reaction, as in the case of the regional committees, for example, which have been referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation and which I also want to discuss presently. Therefore public comment has not yet been invited in connection with this matter, because, as I shall indicate presently, the official concerned has hitherto been working on the preliminaries, mainly with regard to the consolidation of legislation and the implementation of the Riekert Commission’s recommendations. When the documents he has already submitted have been reviewed by the department, I shall request the co-operation of the general public in due course, because I would like to have team work and involvement on the part of all sectors. I regard the new era we have entered as an exciting one, and we simply have to make a success of it. If we succeed in really normalizing race relations between peoples and individuals on the firm basis I have outlined here, I shall show hon. members a country of blessings, prosperity and happiness. Then I shall be able to point to a country where we shall overcome our difficulties, and that is why we must face these matters squarely, because it is essential. Of course, in considering whether an existing provision is still justifiable or whether it constitutes unjustifiably hurtful discrimination, one has to lay down certain general guidelines, and we have laid down three guidelines for our cosmopolitan society and for the development of our various groups, each in its own way, and I have asked my department to take cognizance of these three guidelines in eliminating hurtful discriminatory measures. What are these three guidelines? Apart from the 12-point plan, which is the foundation on which we stand, the three guidelines we have set ourselves are the following:

Firstly, in the residential sphere we believe that every ethnic group should have its own residential area. We say this is not negotiable. We say it is right that people should live in this way because it leads to good neighbourliness.

[Inaudible.]

To people who differ with us about this we say that we are sorry, they will just have to differ. That is our standpoint. Secondly, we say that as far as education is concerned, every nation must have its own distinctive system of education. We say this is fair and justifiable because of our characteristic cultures and needs. This matter has given rise to tremendous strife among White people in this country during my lifetime. It is not necessary for us to turn it into an issue between White and Black, too. The fact is that we do not regard it as hurtful discrimination. We regard it as being the right of every people to have its children instructed in its mother tongue and in accordance with the circumstances and traditions of their own people. If anyone wants to differ with this, he is fully entitled to do so, but I say that this is our guideline in this connection. We say it is not discriminatory, it does not constitute hurtful discrimination. [Interjections.] We also have a great deal of contact with the Black people and the other population groups. That is when they get furious, when people like the hon. member profess to know better than they do themselves what is in their own interests. [Interjections.] That is when they get so furious with people like that hon. member. He always knows better than they do. Hon. members on the other side of the House think that they have a monopoly on behaving decently towards other people. [Interjections.] Meanwhile, they are the people … [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, in the days when I was still a backbencher, I really let fly at them. Today I have to act more responsibly, however.

Our third guideline is the one on the central Government level. Here one has to be particularly mindful of the constitutional development of our national States, a possible future constellation of States, a confederation of States and an umbrella body on which the urban Black will not only be represented, but will also have a say, as has been spelled out very clearly in this House before. These are the three guideposts within which we are moving.

The revision of legislation and regulations and the policy adjustments which are presently being considered with a view to eliminating hurtful discriminatory provisions are taking place within this framework. I immediately want to add that the revision which is taking place at the moment applies only to the legislation administered by the Department of Co-operation and Development, because I cannot speak for any other departments. But in respect of the legislation governing other departments, too, the hon. the Prime Minister said during the discussion of his Vote last week, while I was sitting next to him in this bench, that this would be rationalized.

One of the most important tasks of the review commission up to now has been to give effect to my undertaking that the urban Black could obtain full autonomy at the local authority level. A preliminary draft Bill in this connection is already in my possession, but it will still have to be worked on and quite a lot of discussion will have to take place before anything can be finally introduced. Unlike the Opposition, I am actually giving effect to what I said in this House on the day when I rose here for the first time in my capacity as Minister of Co-operation and Development, namely that I shall try not to do it on behalf of the Black people, but to do it with the Black people. When I am working on something of this nature, therefore, I implement it in practice. Can hon. members imagine the hard work and the time involved in having to consult all the Black leaders about these matters every time? This is the reason why some of these things take a little longer. However, this is the only and the right way in which they should be done. One of the most vexed problems, for example, is the financial one, to which my department is still giving attention. When I come to this House to discuss local government for Black people, I should like to be able to say exactly how these things are going to work and then I should also very much like to usher in an era for the Black people in the municipal sphere, because this is the foundation of good government which will be absolutely sound in respect of its finances as well. However, I find it exciting that just as conventional forms of local government under the provincial ordinances may vary from village management boards to health committees, city councils, and so forth, the Black forms of local government will also be able to vary from community councils—with varying responsibilities depending on local circumstances and viability—to autonomous city councils with additional functions. However, I foresee that the new local government structures will have to function under the guidance of my department. The Riekert Commission recommended, and the State has accepted it, that legislation regulating Black community development should be drafted which would be largely of a consolidating nature, and which would also create the infrastructures for the new Black local authorities. This is an enormous undertaking we have embarked upon. The preliminary draft of a law regulating Black community development is already in my possession. I already have the preliminary draft, but I cannot introduce it this session. It has not been physically possible to come to Parliament with this great task during this session. The draft will repeal certain well-known existing laws and significantly amend others. Therefore hon. members have to take my word for it that we are doing these things in respect of this very important question of the removal of hurtful discriminatory measures, as I have already explained to hon. members in great detail. We shall come to this House just as soon as we can and as soon as this whole matter has gone through the normal channels and we are able to say something more about it.

Hon. members will notice that everything I am referring to is a continuation of initiatives and reform measures. I come now to the so-called reference book, or “pass”. I have expressed my views on the reference book system in this House and on various occasions in South Africa—and not only in America—and I have said that it is my endeavour and that of my department, in co-operation with the national States, to design a system of identification, with its accompanying documentation, which will eliminate the humiliating elements involved in this, where such elements exist. I am not closing my eyes to them. One finds it disturbing when there are humiliating aspect involved. I believe that no one on this side of the House really wants them, so why should we not remove them if we are able to do so? I have committed myself to this, and once having committed myself to something, it is not in my nature to change my tune later. I shall stand by this. My department and I are working very hard to do exactly what I am telling hon. members now. My department is having talks with the Governments of several national States—there we have yet another obstacle in this connection which has to be eliminated before we can take this whole matter any further— concerning legislation which is necessary on their side in order to realize the ideal, and soon I shall personally be involved in discussions on ministerial level in an attempt to finalize this matter. All the regional committees have reported on the question of the reference book and they have requested that the matter be rectified. We are working on it. I have stated that we should like to introduce an identification document which will be similar for Black people, Whites and Coloureds. It would serve no purpose for my department and myself to introduce something which is similar in form, but the contents of which still have certain basic hurtful deficiencies, and therefore, as I have tried to indicate to hon. members, we are trying at the same time to amend the contents in such a way as to achieve something of which everyone in this country could rightly be proud and with which everyone could be satisfied. In June, 1979, for example, we issued a proclamation to extend the powers of the legislative assemblies of the Black States. This was followed in August 1979 by a Government Notice which I introduced myself and in which the power to issue citizenship documents was transferred to certain self-governing Black States. Last year, the so-called reference book was also amended, so that a citizen of a Black State who was in possession of a document issued to him in terms of legislation of his State would receive the necessary recognition and would have the right to be at the place where he found himself. In this way, an attempt is being made to remove the stigma attached to the identity document as soon as possible. Discussions are continuing, so that finality may be reached, and if the practical investigation into the 72-hour question is successful, for example, we shall be very close to an ideal state of affairs. In order to launch this project properly, I have also approved in principle the purchase of the necessary equipment and material for introducing this pro forma document in the proper way. These items cost approximately R250 000. I hope, therefore, that this question of the “pass”, of the reference book, is quite clear. I hope I am not creating any expectations, but we have stated our objectives, we are working on this matter and we shall carry it to its logical conclusion. However, hon. members must understand that it is an important and comprehensive matter. There are 16 million people carrying so-called reference books. When one embarks upon this in order to rectify certain things, therefore, one is not simply fooling about. It is an enormous undertaking we have embarked upon. All I am asking hon. members is to be patient for a while and to be positive in respect of this matter. We are sincere in our intention to achieve this objective, because it is in the interests of all the people of South Africa. I hope I have the co-operation of everyone in this House in trying to achieve this.

I just mentioned yesterday that this Government is very well aware of the need for political progress among the various national groups. I come now to the fifth very positive matter we are dealing with. Yesterday I explained the foundations of good attitudes, co-operation and the development of national States. Therefore I do not have to come back to that now. I come now to a very important matter, in my humble opinion, and this is the political progress of the various national groups. There are all kinds of fears in the minds of some Black leaders concerning the so-called loss and fragmentation of territory if, by accepting independence, they were to comply with the White demand for separate political sovereignty or independence. I want to talk very frankly about these fears they have expressed to me. Their fears are related to, firstly, the question of territory; secondly, the question of transport systems; thirdly, postal and communication systems; fourthly, military authority and action; fifthly, South African citizenship; and sixthly, a guaranteed South African unitary economy. These are the fears they express, while they would like to be a part of the great and strong image of South Africa. Something of this nature is not explicitly guaranteed by the acceptance of independence, while a constellation or a confederal system may satisfy these needs. I just want to point out that the late Dr. Verwoerd stated this same principle in this House as far back as 1959—and hon. members may go and read the book Verwoerd aan die Woord. It is my firm conviction, and that of hon. members on this side of the House, that these needs are not necessarily in conflict with the needs of the White nation in South Africa and its deep desire to preserve what belongs to it, its own heritage and its own identity. On the contrary, it is strongly complementary to the endorsement of separate nationalism and separate sovereign autonomy within a total context of common development. However, the context of successful common development sets only one overriding, vital requirement—and I wish the people of South Africa would understand this, for then we would make more rapid progress—and that is the maintenance of separate, sovereign authority according to internationally recognized standards. I could wax lyrical about this. In my previous speech and in Washington and Palm Springs in America I emphasized the fact that “unless there is equality between the constituent partners”, or until such time as the people in this country really take cognizance of the fact that it is essential that there should be “equality between the constituent partners”, we shall not make any progress in our endeavour to find a real solution to these constitutional problems in South Africa. Separate, sovereign authority is the one—the only—overriding requirement we lay down. We must attain that as soon as possible. We do not want to force any nations, and I shall spell this out clearly to the hon. member for Musgrave when I reply to his speech presently. If we want to solve our problems here in Southern Africa within the African context of revolution and want to avoid revolution in South Africa, we shall have to understand that until we have reached the point of separate, sovereign authority and equal status for all these peoples, we really cannot implement the things that have to be implemented.

What is of the utmost importance in this connection, however, and what we should take cognizance of as the time is rapidly approaching, is that any further constitutional development should be negotiated as a package between this Government and the various self-governing States in order to satisfy as far as possible the divergent needs, with all the advantages this entails, and that the advantages concerned certainly cannot be offered in an isolated context or piecemeal. So I think we are approaching the negotiating phase in which it will be necessary to demonstrate absolute honesty, integrity and the will to co-exist peacefully. In this connection we cannot act precipitately, because the Government is very well aware of the problems of the various Black leaders who are involved. These are responsible Black leaders. Now I should like to reply in one swoop to quite a number of statements which were made in this debate. These are responsible Black leaders who through their thinking and conduct have to bridge the gap between communities within their own ethnic context. They must forge a link between the extremes of traditional underdevelopment on the one hand and highly sophisticated development on the other. This in itself presents serious problems to any political leader. We fully understand that everyone cannot be equally successful simultaneously. That is why it is so vital that the White people in South Africa should provide couragement and support and show understanding for the difficult task which the responsible Black leaders have taken upon themselves in this regard. In the same way there is a heavy responsibility on the White leaders to inform the uninformed and motivate the unmotivated in order to carry through successfully this package presentation of a total formula for peaceful coexistence and unity in the development effort. This certainly does not mean that developments can take place in the short term which are artificial, dangerous and not in relation to the reality of individual achievements and individual abilities. Over the past two or more decades, the realities of South Africa have clearly shown the world that the Westminster system which, in the past, was regarded by the great empires of the world as being virtually synonymous with the free enterprise system, is not a workable constitutional set-up in the African situation of political expression. In Africa today—and we are part of Africa—there are very few countries, particularly those countries which were formerly colonies of the British Empire, where the Westminster system, as originally implemented, still exists today. Even around South Africa the essence of this system has disappeared to a large extent, in the sense that the existence of different political parties articulating the political expression of the masses in accordance with specific principles and finding expression in a joint Parliament in the form of debating, has disappeared. Even in the national States of South Africa the general political expression of the masses is increasingly taking the form of the elimination of a variety of political parties, and is taking the form of a single strong governing party. We must not be so stupid as to fail to perceive the facts around us. We are part of Africa. Apparently this is acceptable to the electorate as a whole as long as the leaders concerned who head the governing party can give effect to their basic requirements in a reasonable and just manner.

Therefore it is a logical step to begin to develop the idea of a confederation and a constellation of States in South Africa. It is the most logical development, but at the same time the most critical test of the underlying motives of everyone who is striving for peaceful co-existence in South Africa. There is another aspect I wish to mention. Let us tell one another bluntly that we have no choice. In addition to the fears of the Black leaders and the communities to which I referred earlier, there are three prodominant priorities which they strive after and which must at least be taken note of in any model for South Africa as far as is practicable, and an effort will have to be made to consider to what extent they can be given effect to if we wish to make successful progress with this package negotiation in South Africa.

I have already dealt with the first one with hon. members, namely the elimination of hurtful statutory discrimination while preserving one’s own identity and rights in one’s own area. It is pointless our keeping silent about the facts. I deal with this every day. These are the facts of the situation. The second priority is a meaningful participation in the South African economy. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke reacted very strongly to that this afternoon. I want to congratulate him on a fine contribution. The third priority is the retention of a broad South African context, apart from an individual citizenship and travel documents, viz. a type of confederal context and travel documents. That is what they ask of us. The fact is that since these priorities in no way affect the principles involved in the White demand for separate sovereignty, the solution for and compliance with the priorities of the Black communities fie to a very large extent in the hands of the Black communities themselves for further negotiation. That is to say that as soon as the one non-negotiable principle of separate sovereignties is complied with, a system can come into being simultaneously which could give effect to the constitutional and other requirements of the various Black peoples on an confederal basis. Each would have its own sovereign head of State, Parliament, territory and joint use of confederal privileges in the economy. Since these spheres are political, they would also be dealt with outside politics by technical management bodies on the basis of confederal rules agreed on in advance. We have already appointed that committee. It is under the chairmanship of Mr. Raath. The committee will co-operate with expertise on an apolitical basis with the national Black States in regard to these matters.

If the forms of local government of the citizens of independent national States within the borders of the Republic of South Africa are well enough developed to accommodate the requirements of local civil life, a system may be developed which is not locality-bound. As has already been said, an organization could be established for the urban Black by way of his representative bodies on the basis of which the urban Black could also make his contribution in the constellation of States. Through this political channel, national as well as certain local needs could be raised at a confederal State conference at which the principle of give and take would indeed apply.

This confederal State conference cannot in any way coerce a single member country. The sovereignty of each State with regard, inter alia, to immigration policy, urbanization policy, defence, etc. would remain unaffected despite the fact that a Southern African military treaty, for example— something almost like Nato—could be put into effect. The confederal privileges of all citizens of participating States would be balanced by a system of checks and balances with obligations that would have to be complied with, because apart from the multilateral agreements entered into on a confederal level, there would still—probably to a greater extent—be bilateral agreements between South Africa and each member country. We have already signed 76 such agreements with Venda. Similar agreements have also been entered into between South Africa and Bophuthatswana, and between South Africa and Transkei.

In this way each member State will be bound to the business cycle of the total South African economy and the Republic of South Africa will not deny any member country these benefits, as long as the confederal rules, which will be based on business principles, are complied with. It goes without saying that a member country will be free to withdraw if it is to its advantage to do so.

It should also be noted that there will be strict differentiation between citizens of the confederal States on the one hand and citizens of the non-participating States on the other, particularly as regards employment opportunities and housing in the development areas in South Africa. I think that is only logical. However, it is as well that this be said.

One would expect of responsible people and bodies in South Africa that they would weigh this confederal idea against any alternative offered to South Africa and that they would assess it in terms of this new perspective. It will be found that there is no better or more practical and workable alternative as a starting point for constitutional reform for South Africa than this one.

I therefore hope that I have now succeeded in singling out for hon. members the five major points which stand as beacons of the initiatives put forward here, initiatives which, if they can be taken to their logical conclusion—and we have every good intention of in fact doing so; we do not intend deviating from them—could hold great promise for a fine, friendly, happy and good South Africa for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black people.

Now I should just like to reply to the various matters raised here by hon. members. The hon. member for Musgrave put questions to me relating to the issue of the position of national States if they do not wish to accept independence. I have already largely replied to that. The position of these States is that their inhabitants are South African citizens. That is the legal, factual position. They are treated as such, although they have their own Parliaments or legislative assemblies. We could take kwaZulu as an example. That national State has its own executive. As I indicated yesterday, kwaZulu exercises its jurisdiction over a number of matters of great importance. It makes its own laws, etc. The position of kwaZulu is that it carries on in the normal way, as is the case at the moment. Last year, for example, we allocated the enormous amount of R1,8 milliard towards government spending on the national Black States to which the hon. member referred. If, therefore, the hon. member maintains that those people will be neglected or forgotten if they do not accept independence, then I can only say that that is devoid of all truth. That will certainly not stand the test of time. That is the one side of the matter. The other side of the matter I have also stated clearly. We do not believe it is right to compel people to accept independence against their will. We believe that it is a process of development and that they themselves will know what steps are required in the interests of their own people. I spelled out very clearly this afternoon what we regard as the one non-negotiable matter in this political system. However, we do not wish to force people into anything.

Do they form part of South Africa?

The hon. member also put a question to me concerning the kwaZulu commission. I am fully informed about that matter. It is my duty. I co-operate well with the Commissioner-General and I am fully informed of the state of affairs in this regard. I just want to say a few words about this very delicate matter and make an urgent appeal to all not to exploit this matter politically.

You should have told your people that last week.

I repeat: I wish to make a friendly but urgent appeal to everyone not to exploit this matter politically. I stand by what the hon. the Prime Minister said about this matter. I am now waiting to hold discussions with Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi on Friday 16 May here in Cape Town. I therefore call for everyone’s cooperation. As soon as these discussions have taken place I shall report to the hon. the Prime Minister as he proposed. Then we can discuss the matter further. I believe that all efforts to achieve peaceful coexistence here in South Africa should be respected. I call upon everyone to respect them and to approach this matter with circumspection.

This brings me to the friendly words addressed to me by the hon. member. I deeply appreciated them.

And you were so nasty to us earlier.

It does one’s heart good if, instead of only getting a stream of criticism from the other side, one gets a few friendly words now and again as well.

You must try to reciprocate sometimes.

I now come to the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I have already congratulated him on a very good contribution. He raised a very important point, one which has often been raised in this House in the past, and that is the issue of interdependence. This is of course a terribly important matter. It is often overlooked. This interdependence is a major factor in the stability we experience and strive for in the Republic of South Africa. That interdependence has such a solid foundation that it has averted more than one ugly onslaught over the past number of years. Therefore we must cherish and promote this interdependence as far as we are able. However, there is something else that I should like to say in connection with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I say it because I wish to say it. The hon. member is chairman of the Van der Walt Commission which is dealing with the consolidation of the national States. I am aware of the enormous amount of work which that hon. member is doing as chairman of that commission. In the first place I want to thank him sincerely for his dedicated work. I also wish to offer him my wholehearted congratulations on the way in which he has dealt with this extremely difficult, almost impossible, task thus far, together with other members of the commission. What I say, I say out of conviction, and I am close enough to these commissioners and to him as chairman to know what I am talking about. This commission could make an unequalled contribution to the weal and woe of the Republic of South Africa. They are engaged in something truly important and truly worthwhile. We wish him all of the best and every success on the road ahead and we thank him for the responsible way in which this commission, under his leadership, is handling this difficult matter. As I said yesterday, this really inspires optimism. It takes exceptional ability and hard work to be able to do the work as it is being done.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to the question of the commission of kwaZulu. I have already replied to that. I believe that he will agree with me in this respect.

I have also spoken about the intangible aspirations of the Black people. I agree wholeheartedly with him that we should not consider the economic and financial side of the matter exclusively, but that the other imponderables are also vitally important. The hon. member said that we should cause these people, too, to feel that there is a place for them in the constitutional dispensation we are dealing with at the moment. He said: “The Minister must act fast. Their place must also be assured.” I can tell the hon. member that it is indeed my plan to do so. We shall not let the grass grow under our feet. The hon. member knows what I am talking about, just as I know what the hon. member was talking about.

The hon. member also spoke about the involvement of leadership in Soweto. That is quite right and I agree with him in this connection. However, he will note that I am not interfering at all in this matter. I consider that that is their own affair. I have kept out of their way in regard to that matter and I intend continuing to do so. I have repeatedly invited the best brains in Soweto —and I am pleased that the hon. member raised the matter, because it enables me to do so again at this point—to come forward and co-operate towards solving the problem not only of Soweto, but of the entire Republic of South Africa as far as relations between White and Black are concerned. I hope that that appeal will not fall on deaf ears. The hon. member will himself have noted that a considerable improvement has already occurred with regard to this matter.

The hon. member also said: “Remove the artificial symbols.” I do of course think that this should be done as far as possible. I have tried to do so and I have indicated this again this afternoon. We shall continue to do so. However, I want to say to the hon. member that I do not wish to get involved in a political argument now. Let me put it this way: I sincerely believe that we must explore and utilize all financial resources in the interests of the Black townships. That I am prepared to tell the hon. member.

What about freehold title?

I have already replied on the issue of freehold title.

That is why he asked you that question.

That is a political matter. Let us not play politics unnecessarily in that regard. That is why I said that in my opinion it was essential that we must explore and utilize all financial resources in the interests of the Black townships. We shall have to do so. I do not wish to elaborate on that further now, because we shall then be in political waters, and that is entirely unnecessary. We must avoid dragging this across the floor of this House unnecessarily. We have enough problems. Let us not cause more problems.

The hon. members for Bellville and False Bay made very important speeches, and I want to thank them sincerely for the responsible way in which they spoke today about a matter which, I realize, is an emotional matter about which both of them feel very strongly. I deeply appreciated the fact that they spoke this afternoon in such a responsible way, in such a sober way. I have held discussions with them, and as they them selves know, I am only too aware of the tremendous problems attendant upon this whole matter. That applies to my department as well. Much of what the hon. members have said about this this afternoon is true. In general it is undoubtedly true. There is not the slightest doubt about that. It gives one sleepless nights. I did not quite know what reply to give to this without making still more promises. [Interjections.]

Set a target.

Yes, I had better set a target. There is one positive aspect I wish to state. If there is a problem, it is hopeless trying to condone it or talk one’s way around it. That I do not wish to do. Nor am I going to try to do so. There is a real problem in this connection. The hon. members know it because they know what is going on, and I know it because I too know what is going on. This is a human problem and we shall have to try to solve it as best we can in a human context. If we have the maximum co-operation we can make rapid progress in doing so. I want to single out one positive point in this connection, and that is that we can point to the fact that there has been a drop in the number of Black migrant workers in the Western Cape from 133 000 to 98 000. This is a reduction of 33 000. But hon. members probably already know that. However, I should like to give one important undertaking about what I am going to do, and that is that in answer to the request of the hon. member for False Bay, I shall take the initiative, in co-operation with two of my colleagues, to take a joint look at this matter with the aim of launching a joint programme. I undertake to do so as soon as possible, and I hope that by saying that I have also replied to the really sound and positive speech made by the hon. member for Bellville in connection with this matter. I hope he will be satisfied when I take the initiative. We can do so in close consultation with the Western Cape MPs and we shall see whether we cannot deal with this problem effectively. We should very much like to do so.

The final thing I want to say about this is that the fact of the matter is that we should not overlook the fact that there is a very large number of unemployed Coloured people in the Western Cape. By any Government standards it cannot be right to introduce other people in such circumstances—whoever they may be—when by doing so one will increase the unemployment among Coloureds and thereby create an increasingly difficult situation in the Western Cape. I therefore ask for the Black people’s co-operation, and at the same time I ask for the co-operation of other people to realize that we have a duty in this regard to provide the 100 000 unemployed Coloureds—to give a round figure, because I do not know what the real figure is—with a living and with employment opportunities, because we see this issue cropping up everywhere. It creates an unhealthy situation, and therefore the hon. members are right to refer to this situation with concern.

The hon. member for East London North reacted quite strongly in the debate. I could not help noticing the difference in the hon. member’s conduct since leaving the NRP and becoming a member of the PFP. There has been a very noticeable change. Last year he spoke with moderation, this year with acerbity and venom. However, I shall forgive him for doing so. The hon. member said that we were doing nothing. He could not have been more mistaken. The fact of the matter is that I was there myself. I personally conducted discussions with Dr. Sebe, and the hon. the Prime Minister paid a visit there. We established youth camps there. Nevertheless, the hon. member said that we did nothing. A month or two ago the hon. member for Houghton approached me and told me about the circumstances of those people there. I told her that I was aware of the circumstances. We immediately sent a senior official of my department there, and many things that were found, were rectified. Last week I sent two of my top senior officials to the Ciskei to reinvestigate conditions there. At present they are experiencing severe drought conditions there. However, we are not doing nothing about the situation. We have sent two senior officials to investigate the position and we are rendering assistance and intend rendering further assistance. I am not in a position to compell industries to establish themselves there. The hon. member says we have done nothing, but I was personally responsible for factories moving from my constituency to that region, because I went to speak to the industrialists and told them that that was a region which afforded possibilities. I honestly think that the region has possibilities. I told them that in my opinion they could make a contribution to the region. Therefore it is not a case of our doing nothing. As it happens, we conducted discussions this morning with the hon. the Minister of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and other colleagues of mine about the question of the report of the University of Port Elizabeth.

The report came into my hands very recently and decisions have been taken in this regard. We are therefore fully aware of the facts of the situation in the Ciskeian territory. We, too, are concerned about the situation, and for our part we are doing what we can to deal effectively with the problems there in the short, medium and long terms and to create employment opportunities. I just want to mention one more example because I cannot confine myself to discussing this matter only. At the same time I want to reply to the hon. member for Johannesburg West, and thank him for his positive contribution concerning the youth camps, because that is very important. We started the youth camps in order to afford the young Black people the opportunity to undergo basic training on the basis of the old SSB system. These Black States asked that we assist them in this regard. We are engaged in doing so. At present the department is negotiating with the Treasury to have an amount of R30 million appropriated for this purpose. Capital for the first year amounts to R20 280 000 and operating capital amounts to R9 720 000. Therefore the amount involved is R30 million in the first year, R10 582 000 in the second year, R11 644 000 in the third year and R12 803 000 in the fourth year. Therefore it is untrue that we are doing nothing. In any event, this is a tremendous headache and a very, very big problem. I have said in the past—and I want to repeat it here—that everyone must do everything in their power to provide maximum employment opportunities in the Ciskei and in the Eastern Cape. I repeat that what we can to achieve that, and the examples I mentioned to hon. members, plus many more that I could mention, we are doing. The S.A. Development Trust in the Ciskei is receiving a total of R16,7 million for the 1979-’80 financial year. But the Opposition maintains that we are doing nothing. We are giving the Ciskeian Government R61,5 million, but the Opposition maintains that we are doing nothing. Therefore the hon. member has definitely not progressed since he left these benches and established himself in those benches.

I need not elaborate on the Mdantsane organization. The hon. member can discuss it with me and I should like to reply to him further in that regard. I do not think it is necessary for me to reply on that here and now, but the hon. member is welcome to come and speak to me about it after the debate is over.

I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his contribution. Hon. members must permit me to say something about the issue of the regional committees. I wish I had the time to elaborate at length on these regional committees. I should very much like to place on record the fact that the six regional committees which consist predominantly of urban Black people, have made a very positive and important contribution to the welfare of the Black people in this country, and also to sound co-operation between White and Black in South Africa. I want to thank them sincerely for that. I wish not only to thank them for their positive contribution; I also wish to congratulate them on it. All the regional committees asked that they should continue with the work they have initiated. We shall consider that.

We are implementing the recommendations they have already made, without exception, over a wide field, as has been shown very clearly in the course of this debate. There is just one matter I want to single out because I think it is essential that it be singled out. One of these regional committees which, as I say, is predominantly made up of Black people, made the statement that the housing problem could be directly linked to the population explosion as a contributory factor, and asked that the Government accept family planning and impress this upon everyone by way of existing Government bodies, and also that the urban Black community should itself accept responsibility for this. Can hon. members imagine what progress it represents in this country when a Black regional committee comes forward with such a request? The Government regards a compulsory family planning programme imposed by the Government as unacceptable, but it carries out its responsibilities effectively by way of the National Family Programme, as statistics prove. In this way I could single out various other matters to emphasize the positive contribution that these committees have made in this regard. I have already replied to the hon. member for Johannesburg West and I also replied at the outset to the hon. member for Heilbron. I just wish to convey my sincere thanks to them both for their contributions in this debate thus far.

I want to conclude by saying that when I look soberly and objectively at the issues and the tremendous problems we are faced with and at the progress being made, I am forced to the conclusion that, on a reasonable and intellectual but also an emotional basis, I must say, in the very striking words of the Black people themselves: “Imbuzi emhlophe mfowethu.” It means: “The goat is white, my brother; the portents are favourable.” Having worked with the Black people and experienced the teamwork between White and Black in this country, there is no other message I can give the people in this country but to tell them in their own language “the portents are favourable”. Let us then, develop these things in a positive way, let us co-operate, White and Black, because if we do, the results will certainly be good.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid my speech will come as something of an anticlimax now, but what I want to express my appreciation for is that the hon. the Minister has spelt out so clearly today that last year’s initiatives had not been lost, particularly after the hon. member for Houghton had said at the commencement of this debate yesterday that “nothing seems to be done”. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has done so, for this is unfortunately a rumour which is being heard throughout this country.

What I also want to express my appreciation for is that the hon. the Minister has spelt out the leasehold system so clearly. I think it was exceptionally good news and I regard this as one of the most important announcements we have heard this year, viz. that there is now a possibility that the responsible Black man may own his own property. We know that property ownership creates responsible people, and if I understood the hon. the Minister correctly, such a person will even be able to obtain property without a deposit. This is a major concession when a responsible person wants to purchase property and does not have a deposit. I can think of many Whites who would like to purchase property today, but who cannot do so because they do not have the necessary deposit.

The hon. the Minister also referred to co-operation which would be needed in future. He quoted the old saying about the mealie grain which one cannot take out of the pot with one finger. I now want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he were to try to take out that mealie grain with both hands, and there was a person continually stirring mud into that pot, he would still not succeed in doing so.

†I want to come back very briefly to the hon. member for East London North. He itemized a whole list of things concerning the Eastern Cape. I waited for him with great expectation to talk about Walmer and the Walmer location, because he itemized that as well. I want to say that it is obvious that the hon. member for East London North does not know that the hon. member for Walmer, in whose constituency the Walmer location falls, dealt with this matter in full during the budget debate. I do not blame the hon. member for East London North for not knowing it because at that stage he was so busy making up his mind whether to be or not to be a Prog that he did not have time to take notice of what was happening here. I do not blame him, because the hon. member for Walmer did not do what the hon. member for Green Point did, and that was to go to the Walmer location with a Press photographer. The hon. member for Walmer went to that location in the company of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the officials of the Black Administration Board to try to solve the problem that exists, but he did not go there, like the hon. member for Green Point, to stir up further mud.

Why did he not solve it?

You see, Mr. Chairman, this is typical …

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

No, Mr. Chairman, my time is short.

It is typical of the PFP to ask why we did not solve it. Yesterday the hon. member for Houghton created the impression that the hon. the Minister could change everything merely by waving the magic wand. This cannot happen. It takes time, and I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that he must wait. The problem will be solved. [Interjections.]

*I now turn to another matter which also concerns the Eastern Cape. As it happens, it affects all Black areas, but since the Eastern Cape is being discussed, I want to say that it affects this area too. It is the provision of accommodation for the Black aged. We are aware that there was a time when provision was made in the Black States only, and if we examine the 1978-’79 report we see that it was possible to admit only 153 such cases from the White areas in the Black States and that it was possible to admit 127 with chronic physical handicaps. A healthy elderly person is one thing, but a chronically handicapped person who needs nursing is a far more important matter, and consequently I consider this a matter about which we shall, of course, have to do something in the shortest possible time.

I do not have the figures at my disposal with which to sketch an overall picture, but I take it that these 153 and 127 cases respectively represent only a small percentage of the Black deserving cases throughout this country. However, I can refer to an example in this regard. There is an organization in Cape Town which requested that similar accommodation be made available in Cape Town’s Black residential areas, Guguletu, Nyanga and Langa. In their application they apparently pointed out that 1 910 pensioners live in those three Black residential areas, 125 of whom need care very urgently. I point this out to emphasize the importance of this matter.

We are aware that Blacks are particularly willing to look after their own elderly people, even though they have to do so in difficult circumstances. If the elderly people concerned are healthy, this is, as I have said, not a major problem to them, but when they are patients, this creates a major problem. Consequently it is very important that something be done now and that we make provision for these cases in the Black residential areas in the White areas.

It is self-evident that everyone would like to spend his last days in the area he is used to, where he has spent his life, where he has worked and where his friends and family live. Everyone likes to live near people they know. This is what we as Whites like to claim for ourselves, and consequently it is only humane to grant the elderly Black people this privilege. That is why I am gratified that the private welfare organizations are to be given Government aid and the opportunity to move in this direction as well. I trust that the Administration Boards and the department will leave no stone unturned and will go out of their way to encourage such organizations, since the housing of Blacks is going to be a major problem for many years to come. Every day we hear about overcrowding in the houses available to these people. The care of the aged is, of course, a difficult matter. It is a matter in which the churches and other persons and bodies can take the initiative. If the State agrees to grant financial assistance, one can expect these persons and bodies at least to contribute their share as well. When the hon. member for Houghton discussed housing here yesterday, she said: “You must move with more than deliberate speed.”

That is right.

I agree with the hon. member for Houghton that we must move with more than deliberate speed. However, I want to say that it is not only up to the department to move with deliberate speed; I think the hon. member for Houghton can serve a very useful purpose by encouraging those organizations—I am talking about social organizations and not the others—with whom she has great influence, to do something for the Blacks, in this case the Black aged people, and to encourage the Blacks to do something for themselves. The Black aged people are the people who need attention.

[Inaudible.]

She can do a tremendous lot by using her influence with those people. She must stop going around telling them that nothing is being done.

[Inaudible.]

I also want to refer to the care of the cerebral palsied and the cripples. This at once calls to mind the wonderful work which the Cheshire Homes is doing for Whites. In this field, too, a great deal can be done for the Blacks who are placed in this category by fate. I know of one young Black man who is paralysed. He can do something with his hands, but there is no opportunity for him. The Cripple Care Association is doing what it can for these people, but it is inadequate. There are most definitely large numbers of Black handicapped who pass the whole day confined to their wheelchairs, but who would like to use their time usefully if the opportunity were to present itself. I have in mind in particular the younger ones among them, who have a lifetime ahead of them and who would like to apply themselves to something useful and perhaps by so doing, contribute towards their independence. In the department’s report reference is made to handicraft centres which exist in Black States. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth will probably pardon me if I do not refer to his speech.

I should like to refer to one aspect, viz. the system of financing of the non-independent national Black States. It is very clear to us that total spendable amounts which are available for spending by the non-independent Black States have increased dramatically in recent years. One becomes a little concerned if one sees on the one hand how these amounts have increased and considers on the other hand how much growth and development will still have to take place in these national Black States in the years which lie ahead. We shall have to re-examine the basis on which the financing of the non-independent national Black States is taking place. If we examine the 1974-’75 expenditure in the non-independent national Black States, we find that this was an amount of R230 million. By 1978-’79 expenditure had risen to approximately R500 million. If we analyse this year’s budget we find that we expect the spending in the present financial year to be approximately R800 million, which is a vast amount. One-eighth of that, i.e. R100 million, will be financed from own revenue. One can thus see how dramatically this expenditure has risen.

I think it is also necessary for us to make a very thorough analysis of the spending of these funds by the non-independent National Black States. Over the years, with the submission of the budget by the non-independent Black States, the commission has found that the emphasis falls heavily on the provision of certain development services in particular. I want to refer to two specific aspects of development in particular.

In the first place there are the development programmes for social services in particular. If we examine the 1974-’75 budget, we find that 29% of that total expenditure was spent on certain social services, viz. medical services and pensions. By 1978-’79 this had decreased to approximately 25%. Let us examine the other leg of this development expenditure which is being strongly emphasized by these non-independent Black Governments, and the development of human potential in those Black States—i.e. education—catches the eye. We find that approximately 19% of the total expenditure was spent on education during the 1978-’79 financial year. Therefore approximately 45% of the budget was spent on these two development programmes, social and education services.

One then becomes a little concerned, particularly since it is the priority and policy of the hon. the Minister, the department and the Commission of Co-operation and Development to cause the emphasis to be placed primarily on development, so that employment opportunities and an infrastructure can be created in the non-independent national Black States. We are all concerned about the development of these States. If we examine what portion of the total budget was spent on development with a view to creating employment opportunities, on the development of certain aid programmes and the physical development of an infrastructure, we find that this was a mere 30%. But what does concern me is the fact that that money which is intended for certain development and aid programmes is not necessarily being spent on them. Consequently I want to put it to the hon. the Minister today that we ought to change the basis of our financing. I think we shall have to change it in this respect that the funds which non-independent Black States are able to provide from their own revenue, and the statutory aid which is offered to them by the South African Government, should be utilized as current government expenditure from the central budget of each of those Black States. The “additional contribution” which is intended for auxiliary funds—for auxiliary projects—must then be deposited in a development fund, where it should be kept completely separate from the funds earmarked for the normal budget. This Parliament ought to appropriate an amount annually from the Exchequer for a development fund, an amount which can be determined by the commission and by the department because they know what the needs of the various Black Governments are. If such development aid fund is then created, the non-independent national Black States can apply for grants or soft loans from those funds. This will afford us the opportunity of granting financial development aid to the non-independent Black States on a project basis.

In the first place, I think that this will also afford the person providing the money the opportunity of accepting co-responsibility for and a joint say in the development of a proposed project. Then, I believe, we shall succeed in bringing about development aid, for the creation of employment opportunities and a physical infrastructure in particular, on a basis of co-operation between the South African Government and the non-independent Black Governments involved. Then it is also possible to make a proper evaluation of a project of this nature. Then proper planning will also be possible and the South African Government will be able to grant the necessary technical assistance as well. The idea should not be that the South African Government is to be the dominating factor in expenditure of this nature. This must take place on a partnership basis between the South African Government and the Black national Government involved. Then, I think, we will be able to assess the effectiveness of such programmes, as well as their singlemindedness and efficiency, and at the same time ensure that funds intended for a specific project are fully utilized for it. This will not only benefit the non-independent national Black States involved, but also the Republic of South Africa.

In his latest budget the hon. the Minister of Finance allocated R15 million from his surplus for project aid. Consequently I believe that we should continue on this basis. Then the national non-independent Black States will also be able to achieve far greater financial discipline for themselves in future.

Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that all hon. members agree that the central problem, the essential problem in South African politics is the relationship between Whites and Blacks, and more particularly the question of political representation as well.

Fifty-five years ago in 1925, one of our greatest statesmen, Gen. Hertzog, recognized and dealt with this major problem in such a way that his formulation of it was valid not only for his own time, but for our day and for tomorrow as well. Gen. Hertzog put it as follows (Gedenkboek genl. J. B. M. Hertzog, p. 178)—

From the very beginning there have been only two alternate policies for this relations issue in the political history of our fatherland, viz. equalization or multinationalism. These radically opposed political schools of thought have been known under various appellations through the years. So one can speak of equalization when one means integration, mixing, “one man, one vote”, a unitary State, etc. Multinationalism can also be described as segregation, apartheid, separate development, separate freedoms, peaceful co-existence or good neighbourliness. During the period between 1652 and 1910 these two conflicting policies slowly but surely began to take root in opposition to each other. During the Voortrekker era, for example, and subsequently in the two Boer Republics, a policy of apartheid was followed, and in the two British colonies, a policy of equalization. This was continued during the period 1902-1910. In 1910, with Union, this was reflected in the compromise of the Union Constitution. The so-called entrenched sections in connection with non-White franchise are an outcome of these conflicting main currents. From 1910 up to today this has been a dividing factor in our party-political history. Political parties have been divided on this issue and have opposed one another vehemently at elections. Even today, after the establishment of the Republic in particular, this is principally the only dividing factor in our party politics, as reflected in the policies of the NP and the PFP. I think it is imperative to keep on stating the difference between the policies of the NP and the PFP in respect of our greatest relations problem, because this determines the future of South Africa and because it is the dividing factor in our party politics.

The NP believes that our policy is the path of life for peoples in South Africa, and that the Opposition’s policy is the path of death for peoples. One cannot deal with these divergent standpoints often enough, for they affect every inhabitant in South Africa. That is why I should like to focus on and emphasize a few central ideas in the development of our policy. Over the decades our leaders and our party have spelt out and formulated this political school of thought so clearly that it is still valid today. Although the route sometimes changes, the destination remains the same. The idea of the right of self-determination of every people runs like a golden thread through the development of our policy, consciously or unconsciously. No wonder then that this school of thought was formulated in this way as long ago as with the founding of our party in 1914—

On the eve of the most important election victory in 1948, the NP election manifesto stated inter alia—

The NP has developed this line of thought to the greatest extent. That is why one of the chief aspects in the political history of South Africa remains the NP’s standpoint that independent Black States must be established. This is our standpoint, viz. we do not believe that the Black man should be represented in the White Parliament. We do not believe in that, because the Black man has his own territory. We see a path of self-sufficiency and eventual independence for the Black man. We are not prepared to share our sovereignty. This is not hostility. This is merely the right which each independent country in the world has. What is extremely important in the preparation for independence, is the fact that we must prepare our Black people far better than the British or the Portuguese have done. We have not thrown their political traditions overboard and substituted others. No, we have retained what was sound in their old system, and we have developed it in new legislation. I mention, for example, the system of chiefs.

Another important question is how we are going to lead the Black from self-government to independence. We shall lead him on the path of self-government, and if he wants to go further, if he wants to take the next step of independence, he has to decide that himself. This is after all his right of self-determination. In our day the Prime Minister has held out the idea of a constellation of States in Southern Africa as a reality, a constellation in which these independent States of ours can share. This constellation opens new vistas and presents them with wonderful opportunities.

The principle of self-determination, as developed by our party, is totally foreign to Opposition thinking. They fought tooth and nail against the right of self-determination of the Afrikaner and the Englishman in 1960, the Transkei in 1976, Bophuthatswana in 1977 and Venda in 1979.

After drawn-out deliberations the Progs came forward with a so-called new policy at the end of 1978. On 5 February 1979, in column 45 of Hansard, this policy was stated for the first time in this House as follows—

In essence this is the old policy of “one man, one vote” in a new guise.

This new policy is a summary of all the old ideas, the old liberal idea of equalization, which have time and again come to the fore from the earliest times in South Africa, i.e. a unitary State, full mutual decision-making, power-sharing, “one man, one vote”, political integration, a consociational model, federation, a national convention and multiracialism. The result is Black majority rule in a unitary State which will inevitably result in a Black dictatorship, conflict, chaos and destruction of the other minority peoples.

Finally I want to warn the Opposition that when one makes a wrong choice in respect of political representation, one will not only be unable to avoid its results, but one will never recover from it either.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to enter into a constitutional argument with the hon. member for Bloemfontein East at this stage. I should just like to point out to him that all parties represented in this House stand for “one man, one vote”, although in different constitutional systems. That he must accept.

I was very interested to listen to the hon. the Minister, who is almost like a brook, a little stream running over ragged stones. With his voluble flow he is able to cover the stones so that they do not appear too sharp to the outside world. Yet in fact those stones are still there. Unfortunately more and more stones are appearing. I think that, despite all that water the hon. the Minister is going to have difficulty covering the stones. What I am saying is that words are not enough. We have got to see action. I accept that the hon. the Minister’s heart is in the right place. Like the hon. member for Musgrave I have great respect for what the hon. the Minister has done, but so far so much of it is words. The situation in the eastern Cape in particular is getting worse by the day. That is the criticism from this side of the House.

Before I get on to the main tenor of my speech, I want to take issue with the hon. members for Port Elizabeth Central and Walmer on the question of Walmer location. Our standpoint is very clear. I think the hon. member for Walmer interjected to the effect that the whole thing had been settled in the Second Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill.

In the no-confidence debate.

I mean in the no-confidence debate. We do not regard this as having been dealt with at all. I am afraid that we do not agree with the viewpoint of the hon. the Deputy Minister that Walmer location has to be moved.

He never said that.

He said that in his speech. The hon. member must just let me finish my speech. I do not believe that the planning that has gone into the Walmer area necessitates the removal of Walmer township. I believe the road can be put in a different place. I do not believe that it is necessary that the airport should make use of sections of Walmer township. The reason why slum conditions exist in Walmer today is that there has been absolute neglect on the part of the local administration board. They have been prepared to do nothing for Walmer, because they worked on the basis that it was going to be moved. Therefore roads have not been looked after and the slum conditions are terrible. I just want to ask the hon. members of the SAP whether they believe that the residents of Walmer township should be allowed to stay there.

The answer is here in Hansard.

Yes or no?

Nobody will be forced to leave the Walmer township.

Fine. The hon. member does not believe that they should be moved.

Nobody will be forced …

Sir, the question I am asking requires a “yes” or “no” answer. It is a very easy one: Do they believe they should be moved?

I have given you the answer.

The hon. member is not prepared to answer.

No people will be forced to leave Walmer Township.

The hon. member is walking a tightrope on the whole question of Walmer Township. This party is prepared to say that we do not want them to be moved and we rely on the standpoint of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister that people who do not wish to be moved will not be forced to do so.

I now want to move on to the question of the Quail Commission report, the Ciskei Commission, as it is sometimes known. I had hopes that the hon. the Minister would deal with this matter. As hon. members probably know the Quail Commission finally reported in February this year. The report contained some very interesting recommendations. It is not my intention to go into detail on these recommendations as I do not have the time at my disposal, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether at some stage during this debate he will react to the comments made by this commission. I think in all courtesy to the Chief Minister of the Ciskei, Mr. Lennox Sebe, it is necessary to deal with this report. A lot of research went into the production of it. The hon. the Minister may or may not agree with its findings, and the political recommendations in particular, and I think it would be of interest for the South African community and also the people in the Ciskei to know exactly what the Government’s viewpoint is on the report by Mr. Quail and his commissioners.

I want to go on to another matter and this concerns Evaton location, which is situated between Johannesburg and Vereeniging/ Vanderbijlpark. It is an interesting area in that in terms of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 sections of the location are part of the released areas which are scheduled in that Act. It is freehold land. The Urban Areas Act and the Community Councils Act therefore cannot be applicable in this area. Specifically in terms of the Better Administration and Designated Areas Act, No. 51 of 1963, I think the institution of a community council in that area could well be ultra vires. I specifically mention this because it raises the question of people who do have freehold. There are not many areas that do have freehold. Fingo Village and Evaton location have freehold. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that in these instances the freehold should be left alone. The differences between freehold and 99-year leasehold is a purely hypothetical one. It is almost a salving of the pride of hon. members in the Government benches. We have a situation where those people have ownership, and they want to continue to town that land. I know that the freehold owners of land in Evaton township are very upset about the whole situation. Their land is being expropriated, and what sort of compensation they are going to receive, I just do not know. Neither do they. There is a very explosive situation in Evaton as a result of this and I would like the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the whole situation in which Evaton finds itself. I actually believe the Community Council operating in the new township extensions should not be operating in the old area, which is scheduled land. It is an interesting area of scheduled land because it falls under no particular homeland as far as I am aware.

I must apologize to the hon. the Minister for trying to deal with a number of subjects in a very short period. I want to go on very quickly to the subject of Glenmore. I know that Glenmore township, which is situated along the Fish River, is no longer going to be the huge development that was originally planned. After objections from the Chief Minister of the Ciskei, the hon. the Minister decided that this was not to be. My question relates to the 3 000 odd people who are living in those tomato box type houses at the moment and who have no means of subsistence, no way of making a living. They have been uprooted from other parts of the Eastern Cape and are now in a situation where, having been put there with the idea that a big development was going to take place, they are forgotten people, and I would therefore like the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the people in this township.

In the short time still at my disposal there is one more matter that I should like to raise, i.e. the question of passports for Black people to travel overseas. I gather that it is the policy of the passport authorities not to grant passports to Black people who are not prepared to accept homeland citizenship of one sort or another. I know of cases in the Eastern Cape, in Grahamstown in particular, of people who have made application for passports and who have been refused passports because they are not prepared to take out homeland citizenship. This amounts to a sort of blackmail. These people are being forced to take homeland citizenship. I know of one gentleman in Grahamstown who says that he does not want to take out kwaZulu citizenship. KwaZulu is the only homeland that he knows, and kwaZulu has absolutely refused to think about accepting independence, and the only way he can retain his South African citizenship—and he wants to be a South African citizen—is by taking out kwaZulu citizenship, and that he does not particularly want to do. I believe that everybody that is still a South African citizen should be entitled to a passport, all else being equal, but yet people are being prevented from going to conferences and everything else overseas purely and simply because they refuse at this stage to take out homeland citizenship. I think this is unfair and I am sure that this hon. Minister— perhaps he is unaware of it—would not condone that. I therefore ask him to do something about it.

I now want to return to the question of removals. I am glad that we have got away from the era of forced removals. There are various areas where planned removal should be taking place, but I hope they are not going to. We have already talked about Walmer and I should also like to refer to Duncan Village in East London, which I know has been planned to be a Coloured township, but it involves the removal of several thousand Black people into Mdantsane, which already is very overcrowded. I would request that the people in Duncan Village be left alone. I believe that by following a policy of urban renewal, this township could be turned into a model township. The Coloured people and the Black people who live side by side in that township, are quite happy to continue to do so.

What about the Indians?

The Indians are quite happy to do so as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to react to a few aspects raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He remarked on the Quail report and maintained that the hon. the Minister was more or less obliged to say something about the report at this stage. But the hon. the Minister is at present negotiating with the Ciskei Government on consolidation, and the Quail report, inter alia, is also involved, and consequently I do not think it is reasonable of him to expect the hon. the Minister to have to react to it now. I think the hon. member will accept this in all fairness.

The hon. member referred to Glenmore too. During a recent visit to the Ciskei I payed a visit to the Tjefu Scheme. Glenmore town is not far from that. I rode around the town and spoke to the people. It is true that their houses are “small boxes”, as the hon. member said, but the community, as I saw them, are happy at the moment. There are no problems. They are living happily there. Moreover, the majority of them have work, but basically they are doing well, at any rate better than they were doing where they came from.

I do not want to argue with the hon. member about “removals” now. I think it is a subject in itself. I think the hon. member ought to be reasonably satisfied with the Government’s policy. The department’s people involved in the removal of people from Black spots to areas where they have to be resettled, ensure that it is done on a basis of co-operation with the people. In any event, the Trust is re-organizing itself to see whether it cannot carry out these removals on a different basis, a basis according to which one would move people in such a way that their position is actually better than before. I think this is the logical solution to this problem.

I should like to react to another aspect raised in this debate, viz. the concern expressed yesterday by the hon. member for Klip River about the control of Trust lands. Like the hon. member I too am very concerned about this position. In the year covered by the present report the position is that the area over which the Trust at present has control comprises 1 325 properties amounting to 744 000 ha. If one also takes into account that we are receiving an additional amount of R74 million from the budget this year, with which we shall most probably purchase an additional 120 000 ha, this means that this area is going to become vastly increased. The extent of land is increasing. At the same time control over the land must develop as well.

Consequently it is very important at this point for me to elaborate to hon. members on this particular problem area, viz. that one cannot on the one hand increase one’s funds in order to purchase more land without at the same time improving one’s funds and control system on the other in order to be able to control that larger area. Then one ends up in the position where land in South Africa is being wasted, and my department and I are not prepared to allow this to happen.

At present we are examining different methods which will enable us to utilize and preserve the Trust Land more effectively. I want to enumerate a few of these. We shall have to examine the terms of lease afresh. I am now referring to terms of lease of land and farms not intended for resettlement. The idea which we favour and which we are investigating, is to see whether we cannot lease this land to people for longer terms. At present we are negotiating with the S.A. Agricultural Union with a view to designing certain methods of bringing farms that are available for hire to the attention of agriculturists.

However, we have other methods too, in that we are also having discussions and making contact with the Economic Development Co-operation, because it is true that some of these properties that have been taken over are highly productive. Because of that one does not want a person who is being bought out to withdraw his working capital, for then one must subsequently lease the land or utilize it in another way and use new working capital to initiate new production activities. We are negotiating with the EDC to ascertain whether it cannot take over a considerable number of these properties. Hon. members will understand that this is an important cost aspect, for the EDC will have to equip itself with working capital, implements, livestock, etc. The term of lease will also play an important role in this regard in respect of writing off, etc.

These are some of the different methods being considered at present so that we can ascertain to what extent we can utilize this land and have these properties productively occupied as far as possible, for as soon as one withdraws a farm, raids occur and undesirable people move in.

Another very important aspect is that one must also be very careful how one handles this situation. One of our problems is that once the Trust has purchased the land, the Black people living in adjacent areas believe that they have a kind of right to occupy that property. This is one of our problems and I understand it. At present we are having discussions with tribal authorities and Black Governments in order to negotiate with them certain development agreements in respect of these properties. In other words, they must accept co-responsibility for the development of such a property.

But the hon. member also raised another aspect concerning the Trust which I consider important. The hon. member expressed his concern about squatting conditions which have developed on Trust properties bordering on urban areas. The hon. member referred to the case of Inanda. It is an area which was thrown open quite a few years ago. Black people moved there in order to squat. The hon. member asked whether the Trust could not take certain initiatives in respect of the creation of basic infrastructure such as water supply, etc. I think this proposal has real merit. I might just tell hon. members that we already have such a scheme at Steilloop in terms of which the Trust made funds available to Black people by means of loans. The local Administration Board is assisting the people and a type of self-building scheme is being developed. People are obtaining houses for themselves there in an orderly way. We shall investigate this matter further and later on I may be able to report on it again.

There is another aspect which I should also like to refer to. The hon. members for Parys, Schweizer-Reneke and Vanderbijlpark are very concerned about the position as regards the creation of employment in the national States. I share their concern. They made very sound contributions in this regard. However, I want to warn against one thing. We must be very careful about the way in which we want to develop the economy in the Black States. I want to tell hon. members that one cannot willy-nilly apply a White economic system in a Black area, for there are fundamental differences. One is dealing with a developed community and a developing community. In other words, one has this duality in your economic system and one must most definitely take it into account. White economy involves entrepreneuring capital and maximum return, whereas the Black economy, the developing economy, rests on a communal basis. One cannot ignore this communal basis under any circumstances, because as soon as one ignores it, one is faced with social and political problems. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity of completing his speech.

I thank the hon. member. I just want to continue with my argument. As far as the type of development we are referring to is concerned, I want to refer to the Economic Development Corporation, the EDC. The EDC recognizes these community development systems. I want to explain how this is done. The EDC enters into negotiations with Black States and tribal authorities in respect of their land. The EDC negotiates certain development agreements with them and they develop project farming systems. I can refer to a whole series of systems of this nature in which a great deal of money has been invested. I could, for example, refer to the farm Eshowe on which there is a large sugar industry with a capital investment of R1,1 million and a turnover of more than R400 000. I can also refer to the well-known Zebediela with a capital investment of more than R2 million and a turnover which at present amounts to almost R7 million. Consequently there are various investments the EDC is making with a view to the development of a project in co-operation with the local community so that they can share in it as well. This works because the community itself gradually becomes involved in this development. The involvement of a community ensures acceptance and this motivates the people to share in the whole economic process as well. This is the basis and the method in accordance with which we are moving into these national States, and this is acceptable to the Black States for they are being involved in this way.

I want to tell hon. members that certain economic developments have a far greater growth potential than others. One of these is agriculture. The hon. member for Parys referred to the tertiary and the secondary industries. I think this is very important. However, if one examines the costs of the creation of employment opportunities, one will see, according to figures supplied by the EDC, that the cost per employment opportunity is far lower in agriculture. Let me quote a few figures. In the case of agriculture it is R2 000, and in commerce and industry it is R4 800 per employment opportunity. An interesting figure is that of the CNOK—the National Development Corporation of the Transkei—according to which the cost per employment opportunity in agriculture is R1 700. In industry it is R7 400 and in commerce, R8 600. This is very important, particularly with reference to what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said, viz. that the capital one uses for development must be utilized as effectively as possible. This is an aspect we shall have to examine thoroughly. When we create employment opportunities we must do so as inexpensively and labour-intensively as possible. However, there is one problem in respect of agricultural economic development, viz. that it is not market-oriented, but in fact subsistence economy oriented. The production of the projects to which I referred, are organized for manufacture and they export their products. In other words, they have the potential to become market and production oriented. We are developing in that direction, and we are making good progress. The potential for economic development in this direction is phenomenal because, as the hon. member for Heilbron said, most of these areas are situated in regions of the country with a relatively good rainfall and high land fertility, i.e. there are natural resources which are under-utilized. By means of community involvement we can succeed in achieving a higher growth rate in the national States. This is the position in Africa. This is their type of development.

I want to quote one specific example. Approximately 70% of Malawi’s population is economically active in agriculture. By building the communal system into the process of agricultural production they have maintained a growth rate of more than 6%. I think it is also possible to achieve this in our own South African national States. The point I want to make is that we cannot simply say that you can take a White economy as is and apply it to a Black economy. A Black economy works differently, and one must take this into account when one invests capital to set in motion development efforts in national States.

Mr. Chairman, I readily agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister when he says that it is impossible simply to transfer a White economy to a Black area. I have just said to a colleague of mine that one could pump all the money in Europe into a Black State of Africa, and one would still not have a developed economy. It is virtually impossible. We must accept, and I believe everyone in the House accepts it, that we shall have to find some other starting point for helping the national Black States, or homelands, to develop an economy which will be peculiar to them and which will be based on the natural resources in their territories.

One must be careful, however, when we begin to talk about large schemes. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about a scheme in which R1,1 million had been invested, with an annual turnover of R400 000. This involves only a few people, however. It is impossible to involve the whole population of a region in such a scheme. During the budget debate I suggested that we should try out some other plan. I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Ermelo who spoke about Kangwane. He is on to something there which is of crucial importance to us in South Africa and which we must follow up.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that this would require money from us, as well as a way of working it into the tribal system of the Black man so that the ordinary Black man in those areas could become involved in agriculture, which is very important. According to the tribal system, as we know it, it is impossible to give the ordinary man a piece of land for a period of, say, 10 years and expect him to retain that same piece of land.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before business was suspended I was making the point, with the agreement of the hon. member for Ermelo, that the tribal situation in the homelands was such that it was not possible to divide land and to hold land over a period of time so as to give security of tenure to an individual Black man to work that ground for himself and for his family in his own interest. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider my suggestion with the utmost care. During the Second Reading debate I asked that the money which was currently being spent on consolidation, on the purchase of White farms and on the movement of Black people and Black families from one area to the other, should rather be used in the immediate future to create a fund with which—through the system the hon. member for Ermelo spoke about—the Black chief and the Black headman could be able to create a system of plots of ground of a viable size for individual families, so that, through payment to the headman or the chief this whole new system could be maintained and provision could also be made for the source of income of the headman or the chief to be preserved. At the present moment that source of income is indeed the man who pays the chief or the headman for the use of that land. What I am actually trying to achieve is this. Money should be made available by the homeland Government to the chief or the headman so that there can be individual tenure of land on a leasehold basis. Because of the communal nature of the ground it cannot be bought. There should, however, be security of tenure on a leasehold basis. I am strengthened in what I am asking by what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development said. If I understood him correctly he said there was now about 700 000 ha more in the possession of the Trust. That is land still to be bought this year, land which has not yet been made available for take-over by the homeland Governments.

The hon. the Deputy Minister himself showed concern about the fact that that land was being taken out of agricultural production. It might be leased back to the original owners. It might be advertised and used by there farmers. At the moment, however, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development, the hon. member for Klip River and other hon. members as well are concerned about the fact that that quantity of land is being taken out of agricultural production. I put it to the hon. the Minister that it will pay us now to take a step back from the process of consolidation. I refer particularly to the speech made by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, a speech which I regard as being a landmark in this House. It is one of the most impressive speeches I have ever heard the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke make in this House. [Interjections.] I am very, very serious when I say this, because I honestly believe that the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke’s speech was a breath of fresh air in the whole approach to consolidation.

We are now going into the field of constitutional change. In the province of Natal—and I challenge anybody to gainsay this—consolidation is a physical impossibility. It is not possible to have a really meaningful consolidation in Natal. [Interjections.] A debate on this topic is in the offing. When that debate takes place, after the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke’s Commission has made its representations and legislation is finally introduced, we will argue this matter again.

I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister though that the only way of getting out of the problem in which he finds himself at the moment is by taking a step back from consolidation and by using the funds to create the sort of thing I am talking about. What we should have are individual farmers —each Black man on his own plot of land, with a permanency of tenure, all funded by the South African Government. In that way one can do what the hon. the Deputy Minister was talking about. In that way one can set the base for the economic development of the homelands. I challenge anybody in this House to say to me that it is possible to create employment on a major scale in the homelands on any other basis. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about R1,1 million for development and about a turnover of R4 400 a year. He did not say, however, how many jobs were being created. He said it was about R4 000 per job per year in the farming areas and in agricultural activities.

I said R1 700.

R1 700 per job? All right. In any case, how many millions of people there are seeking employment? If we want to create employment on a large scale, if we want to generate capital on a large scale, those people should become involved in the assets that are there. We talk so much about land. We talk so much about consolidation. What we require in South Africa is a new factor in consolidation. What we require is not just the hectares of land, but a factor relating to land times rainfall. It is not enough to say that the Blacks have so much of the ground and the Whites have so much of the ground. We need a new factor in that equation, and that is land times rainfall. The production capacity of the ground is something we cannot afford to lose sight of when we are talking about consolidation. One of the hon. members made the point that 24% of the best agricultural land is in the hands of Black people now, but it is not being used. What we are looking for, on both sides, is a viable or workable means whereby Black people can be given holdings so that they can work for themselves, produce surplus food, sell it and generate a cash economy. One more thing is needed, however, and I have referred to this in the House before. I am referring to the mental attitude towards work on the land. In the good old days, when we were all proud of being Anglo-Saxons and all that jazz, it was called the “Anglo-Saxon work ethic”. That was something of which the Western World was proud in the old days.

“Protestant work ethics”.

Yes, “Protestant work ethics”. I beg the hon. the Minister’s pardon. It was the “Anglo-Saxon/Protestant work ethic”. People must gain a new approach to land. It must not be thought of as something merely to have and live on, or squat on or occupy. It must be something which one can use to produce food for the family and food to generate a cash income, in fact with which to generate entirely new development in those homelands. Let me repeat what I have said before. One can take the entire wealth of Europe and put it into the Transkei, but one would not, as the hon. the Deputy Minister quite rightly said, create in the Transkei a viable, European-style economy, because the mental attitude of the people towards work is such that they could not make their country what Europe was and what our country is becoming today. We have taken the Black people out of the tribal situation and brought them across to our Western way of life, and they are the people we refer to as urban Blacks.

Our economy is booming, and we are riding that boom on the shoulders of Black people who are participating on that basis. One has to transfer that basis from the central economy to the economy of the rural homelands. I put it to the hon. the Minister that there is a way in which it can be done. It is a practical proposition in terms of what I think is possible. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that the department has land that it cannot service, process or hand over to the Government of the homeland areas. The land is lying there and is a problem in the hands of the department. So why do we go on buying land, buying land and buying more land, only creating problems for ourselves, when it is possible to take another route and approach the problem from a different angle in order to find a different solution. I therefore make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to listen to people who might have a different solution. There might well be a different solution, even though this might entail postponing certain things.

The hon. the Minister was talking about the eventual constellation or confederation and about independence which is a basic prerequisite for a confederation to work. I put it to the hon. the Minister, however, that it is possible, in our situation in South Africa today, to short-circuit the process towards full independence and then bringing people back into a confederation. The journey from independence to confederation requires the surrendering of certain powers. Why should we therefore go to point C and then come back to point B? Why can we not merely go to point B and bring about confederation on that basis, without going all the way through to physical independence, and then surrendering certain powers to the central authority.

That is where we differ.

And those who are already independent?

They simply have to surrender certain powers to the confederal area. There is no problem about that. Every one of them has indicated a desire to be included in any kind of central system that makes them once again participants in the overall picture of South Africa. I ask the hon. the Minister to go to those people and ask them whether they wish to be included. If they wish to be included, all they have to do is to surrender a certain measure of their power back to the confederal area together with us and the other homelands who have not gone all that way but who have gone far enough to participate on an equal basis. I ask the hon. the Minister, who has a trained mind, to think about that. Why is it necessary to proceed all the way to independence? It is not necessary. We can short-circuit the process and include those people in a system which will be a workable system and a viable one.

In a more consolidated way.

The hon. member for South Coast says it should be in a more consolidated fashion. Nobody argues about consolidation. The need for consolidation, the desirability of consolidation, the desirability of having one block of territory for the Zulus in Natal, for instance, is admitted by everybody. We in Natal are the first to say we should like to have one block.

I did not say one.

Well, if one does not have one, one has two, three or four Black areas honeycombed into the whole body of Natal and one then creates an administrative problem which can only be solved by day-to-day negotiation. One is then cutting across proposals the hon. members are making, proposals of a constellation of States. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rather enjoyed the speech by the hon. member for Mooi River tonight. I want to associate myself with him and, as a Western Transvaler, congratulate the chairman of the Consolidation Commission, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, on a fine and well-thought-out speech today. It was an excellent speech and it was a pleasure to listen to him.

The hon. member for Mooi River has problems with consolidation. I know he has a problem in this regard in Natal. However, we understand that one cannot group the Zulu population together in one big area. The Government’s approach is that consolidation must be meaningful. I am not in favour of merely purchasing land at random. Nor do I believe that is the commission’s approach either. But we must consolidate meaningfully wherever we can. I do not believe that any fault can be found with that. I want to add—and now I am going to voice some criticism—that the Black man, no matter whether he already has an independent or an autonomous State or not, will have to learn that the basic task of a people is to feed itself. How does one feed oneself? One does it by using what one has. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture would say that if a man is a good “jockey”, he would give that man any farm to cultivate. That man is then, in other words, a good farmer. However, the Black man will have to be taught that in order to feed a people—which is a primary task—one has to use what one has to best effect. How does one do it?

Tonight I want to dwell for a few moments on the question of the training of the Black man and of the ways in which the White people can assist in the training of the Black man. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, there is a difference between the White man’s economy and the Black man’s economy. But the Black man must be trained to maintain the standard of the White man in future. If the Black man can be trained to utilize his piece of land to the optimum, not only in his own interest, but in the interests of the economy of that particular population group, the White man will have succeeded with his training. One cannot train the Black man in the field of agriculture only.

In this respect the department is getting very good results. As far as farming is concerned, the Black man, no matter whether he is a maize farmer, a dairy farmer or a sheep farmer, is technically trained so as to achieve the best possible results. Moreover he must be trained so as to perform a function in the Black areas too. I want to be critical tonight in pointing out that the first thing which a Black State builds when it achieves its independence is a casino. I believe it is right for us Whites to tell them not to make money—which also comes from the Whites in any event—only from hotels and casinos and channel that to their people. They can build things like that, but then they should first perform their primary task, viz. to cultivate and utilize the land they have acquired. That is why I object to that kind of thing and why I believe the Black States and their Governments should rather do everything in their power to train their Black children as teachers, electricians, plumbers or masons, for in that way they will be able to perform and fulfil their primary task. In that way they will produce those farmers who will be able to work on the farms and know what to do. At the same time they will also cause the Black man to realize that he should build a house on that farm. If he is a trained mason, he can build a house there himself. Instead of investing millions of rand in casinos, they should persuade those big companies which converge on the independent States like a lot of vultures, to perform an educational task in the country and not only fill their own pockets. That is my approach. The leaders of the independent Black States should rather request the big companies to build a few technikons in their countries. They should rather ask the big companies to erect nursing homes like the one at Baragwanath so that the young Black girls can be trained as nurses. It is true that there are in fact a few such institutions, but are they adequate? They should also request that their Black sons be trained to build hospitals in the independent Black States, and not only as masons. They should be able to deal with all the facets of the building process. Then they would be performing an educational task. I should like to state that we should not only train the Black man to sell his labour in the White areas, because then he will always remain a dependant of the White man. We should train him so that he one day will be able to do his work in his own area, in the interests of his own people and his own fatherland. That is the plea that I want to make tonight. There are people and large concerns in South Africa that have the interests of the developing homelands as much at heart as I have. I want to call on them to see to it that instead of five-star hotels they should rather use the money to educate the children of the independent Black States, not only to farm and so perform the primary task of food supply, but to perform the other forms of labour which are so essential, too. I thank you.

Mr. Chairman, true to his nature the hon. member for Stilfontein again spoke to us from the heart tonight, for which we should thank him. I believe even the hon. member for Pinelands appreciated what the hon. member said. I want to speak about a different matter tonight, one which is usually also a matter of heartfelt concern to any people. I want to deal with Inkatha, which is a cultural organization. I wish to maintain that every people has a right to its own cultural organizations which have as their object the preservation and the promotion of that people’s own culture.

Like the Zulu Broederbond.

… and furthermore to realize its objectives as revealed in its history and traditions. Nationalism, as nurtured by the outlook on life and philosophy of each people, is peculiar to that people. The Afrikaner has fine examples of organizations which over the years have really meant a lot to the Afrikaner people. In the same way the Zulu people has its own cultural organization, Inkatha. Inkatha was established in 1928 under the auspices of King Solomon as the Zulu National Congress of that time. It is interesting to note that actually Inkatha traditionally means a plaited ring of grass, made from the grass obtained from the huts of the chiefs conquered by a specific chief; in other words, the idea is that the Zulu people should be brought together and united. The Inkatha of King Solomon can be seen, therefore, as a cultural movement for the unification of the 300-odd Zulu chiefs into one unit. In the rule of King Cyprian, the young Gatsha Buthelezi came on the scene. Due to the pressure of various chiefs at the time it became his task to revive and invigorate Inkatha once again which was a commendable task in its own right. The object was not only to instil into the Zulu nation a spirit of nationalism, but in fact to bring about solidarity between the rural and the urban Zulus.

Accordingly, the constitution was amended in 1975 to make provision for this, so that Inkatha would become something more than only a purely Zulu movement. Consequently the name was changed and hon. members who speak Zulu will be able to criticize my pronunciation, but I believe it is something like Inkatha Yenkúlúléko, which in any event means the great organization of the whole nation. This, I believe, the hon. member for Mooi River will concede. That was the idea. Then this organization became a cultural liberation movement—and this is important—for all Zulus in South Africa. It was no longer limited to the rural areas only. Their primary objective was—

In other words, the target area was extended from the traditional area to the cities of the whole of South Africa. Subsequently, during June/July 1979 the constitution was further amended—and now it becomes important— with the following as a further object—

No longer “Zulu people” but “Black people”—

And further—

Now it becomes possible for anybody to become a member of Inkatha, regardless of his ethnic background. Tragic though it may be, this was also the end of Inkatha as a cultural organization. I said at the beginning that in the life of every people it was absolutely essential in my opinion for it to have a vibrant, alive, active cultural organization. As far as I am personally concerned, it is a pity that that real, primary cultural function is now lost to that organization. Actually it could not be otherwise, because Mr. Buthelezi, as president of the new Inkatha, has a very broad outlook. In an effort to illustrate this, I now want to quote what Ben Temkin writes in his book Gatsha Buthelezi, Zulu Statesman.

Ben Temkin writes as follows—

He goes on to say—

Now Inkatha is ready to make common cause with the Black alliance. Now it is no longer a question of nationalism born out of the people themselves, but nationalism as something anti-White. It now concerns the idea of Black power.

Black nationalism.

If that hon. member would just keep quiet, he might learn something. If it suits it, Inkatha still wants to keep up its cultural task, but, however tragic it may be, its president, secretary-general, Mr. Oscar Dhlomo, Minister of Education, and other members are now going out of their way to disengage Inkatha from cultural and national ties. Oscar Dhlomo says, inter alia, the following in The Cape Times of 19 February this year—

I want to submit that this is not correct, that in its initial stages, when it was still the “Congress” it did have a basic cultural task. According to Mr. Dhlomo, Inkatha is the custodian of a tradition, viz. the struggle for the liberation of the Black people. As far as I am concerned, Inkatha is now becoming a dangerous two-headed animal. One tongue spits militant, vengeful politics—almost like the Progressives—while the other tongue advocates peace, love, solidarity and cooperation. Let me quote from a document in which Oscar Dhlomo speaks about—

He goes on to say—

In his New Year’s message Mr. Gatsha Buthelezi says, inter alia, the following—

In Beeld of 23 July 1979 he says, inter alia—

In all fairness I wish to point out that in contrast to that we have a statement by Mr. Oscar Dhlomo—

He goes on to say—

Then he says—and I maintain this is a cunning statement—

This is the danger we are experiencing with regard to Inkatha at the moment, viz. that we have statements by his general-secretary which stir up strife on the one hand and preach co-operation on the other. I believe it is time we saw the danger in this situation, where a cultural organization is sometimes utilized for cultural purposes, but on the other hand is abused for political purposes. [Interjections.]

Where did they learn the lesson?

Order!

Mr. Gibson Tula, the chairman of the publicity and strategy committee of Inkatha says, inter alia—

It is his right to talk about that. I do not criticize that. However, it is necessary for all of us to realize that these things are taking place under the cloak of Inkatha as a cultural organization. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to what has been said in this debate since it started yesterday. I must tell the hon. the Minister that I am most encouraged by his enthusiasm and his sincerity. I do believe he is honestly trying to change the situation of the Blacks in South Africa, particularly in Soweto, with all the plans they have for Soweto. I sincerely hope that he is going to be able to see these plans come to fruition.

I was a bit concerned about what the hon. member for Virginia had to say in regard to Inkatha. When he started I felt that I could have some sympathy with him. I am not quite sure what to say about the latter part of his speech. I only wish he could have had another 10 minutes, if I may say so, to complete that which he had to say. I can recall speaking about Inkatha two or three times before in this House. I think it was about two or three years ago, during the Second Reading debate of the budget, that I spoke about the Broederbond and Inkatha. I then said that as a pluralist I could appreciate the need for groups of people to have a cultural organization, and even a political organization, to ensure that that group is not dominated by another group within a plural society. For that reason I said, at the same time, that I could see that to the Zulu people, and to the other Black people of the province I come from, Inkatha was a means to the end they were seeking, viz. the upliftment and the cultural liberation of their people.

I represent a constituency which borders Umbumbulu, Umnini and many other areas of kwaZulu. I want to tell the House that a member of Inkatha has telephoned me, not once but on many occasions, to seek my assistance in trying to improve the Railway facilities for his people going to and coming from work. They have asked me to approach the Post Office on their behalf to assist in ensuring that there are better Post Office facilities for the Zulu people within their area, so that they can invest their money with the Post Office. They have asked me to approach the S.A. Police Commissioner in Durban to ensure that the people going to and coming from work are safe from the Tsotsi’s attacking them. I want the House to know that when I approached these officials, they sent their men into the field to study the problem and we have received the cooperation of these State departments. This ordinary man, a member of Inkatha, told me one Sunday night that he and his wife spent much of their time trying to help their people with their problems. If that is what Inkatha was originally designed to do, I believe it is an admirable cause. To me, this Zulu is prepared to help his people. On another occasion, a member of the Zulu Parliament, who is also a member of Inkatha, came to see me in my flat. He told me that his people had come to him to tell him that my people were trading illegally in their areas and that his people wanted him to go to the authorities to see if he could resolve the issue. He told them he would rather go and talk to the White MP. I spoke to the traders concerned and discussed the problem with them, after which I reported back to the Zulu MP, who thanked me and said he would talk to his people and that is the last I heard of the problem. I say here, I really appreciated the way he approached the problem.

If Inkatha was designed for the upliftment and the cultural liberation of their people, then I say: Good luck to the Zulu people! However, I issued a warning in this House two years ago. I quoted from the speech Chief Gatsha Buthelezi made before the “Suidkus se Kajuitraad” of the NP at Umbogintwini in my constituency. The title of his speech was: “Confrontation or Dialogue?” He said to them: “I cannot understand you Afrikaners. Why is it that you criticize me and Inkatha, because all we are doing is following your road, your path to the liberation of my people?” At that time he also said to these Afrikaans-speaking NP members that his people were telling him that the only way to liberation was by taking a path similar to the one the Afrikaner took. He referred to the Afrikaner’s history books and his heroes, such as Robey Leibbrandt and others, who were prepared to die for the liberation of the Afrikaner. The point I am trying to make is that if Inkatha is becoming a political, Black nationalist power organization, then we must search our own souls to see what has happened to create this confrontation that has developed. Therefore, I back the hon. the Minister if he is going to work sincerely with the Black people of South Africa in order to find solutions to problems. I intended, tonight, to talk about a file I have here on a problem I have in my constituency, a matter which has been outstanding now for four years. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows about it: he wrote me a letter about it the other day.

Inkatha?

It is not an Inkatha file. It concerns the practical problem of the relationship between Blacks and Whites on the border of my constituency, with kwaZulu. We live right next to kwaZulu. I came to appeal to the hon. the Minister: Please let us resolve this practical problem. I take note, and I believe we all should take note of what my leader said earlier today, viz.—

I do not intend to make political capital out of this problem. We have administrative problems in Natal concerning the day-to-day life of the Zulu people and I and my colleagues hear of many of these problems. In the spirit of co-operation, to use the name of the Department of Co-operation and Development, between Black and White in my province the potential of the people can be developed. I am a farmer and I have Zulus and Xhosas on my farm. I do not damn the Blacks. I know they have the same desire to work as we do. I agree with what my hon. colleague said, viz. that we must develop the work ethic in South Africa. The Zulu and Xhosa people, as I know from my own experience, are prepared to work, but they have got to be motivated and they must feel that they are part of the scene. They must believe there is a purpose in what they are doing. They must believe there is a future for their children and that their children are going to be educated so that they may aspire to the same things we as Whites like our children to aspire to. All I am saying is that I hope this hon. Minister, with the enthusiasm he has and knowing the potential for disaster in South Africa as he does, can bind the people of South Africa into some form of confederation through a new constitution so that we can build South Africa with the potential we have, with the human and natural resources we have. I hope the hon. the Minister can do it. Our role as Opposition members is to point out where he is perhaps failing and I intended to do this to-night in a very parochial way. If the hon. the Minister can unite this country, we can build a greater South Africa. But I am afraid that, if we allow these power blocks to develop, sectional, self-interested, nationalistic—whatever one wants to call them—power blocks that are out to conquer or destroy one another, then we are on the wrong road. I am prepared to reserve my judgment of this hon. Minister. After what I have heard here yesterday and today, and knowing what the officials are trying to achieve in Soweto, I am prepared to reserve my judgment, but the future will judge whether the spirit, determination and motivation of this Parliament is correct for this time in the history in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, as well as the speaker who preceded him, devoted quite some time to Inkatha. We do not have any objection to Inkatha as a cultural organization. The hon. member need not become so excited about it.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member nevertheless. He spoke very agreeably and I also want to speak specifically on good relationships between Black and White. I conclude from what the hon. member said, and I want to accept it, that he is a man who builds good relations between White and Black. This is to be welcomed. Promoting good relations deserves nothing but praise. We must promote relations, because the person who bedevils them at this juncture in South Africa, is playing with fire and is in fact doing the country a disservice. The major problem, however, lies in the fact that good relations are being cultivated by one sector of the population in this country only at the moment, viz. the Whites.

Oh, that is nonsense.

They are being cultivated by the Afrikaner in particular. [Interjections.] We must search very carefully to find where good relations are being built by the Black population in this country, and we must search even more carefully to find attempts in this regard on the part of the official Opposition. [Interjections.] Now if we have listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech earlier today, it should have been clear to us that he placed very strong emphasis on building good relations. The hon. the Minister spent some time on the question of the removal of discriminatory measures, such as some everyday measures that we come up against in our dealings with people, as well as measures concerning carrying passes, etc. All of this brings one message home to us. This is that the hon. the Minister wants to build good relations, that it is the task of the Government to build good relations in South Africa. If we think back over the past few years, of what has been done in the sporting sphere for instance, surely it is clear that wherever there was a need to do so, the Government took measures to create good relations. There was also the throwing open of certain hotels, for instance. We can also think of the appointment of Black people on certain boards and commissions. Black people were used everywhere. There are so many examples of this that one simply cannot mention all of them. For instance, we can also think of White employers and the part they played in creating good relations. How many good relations have not been created by industries? Our academics are also ensuring the continual exchange of ideas between White and Black, with the specific aim of establishing good relations.

However, at the same time we wonder what the other side of the picture looks like. When we take note of speeches by Black leaders, we are obliged to conclude that they are not doing very much to cultivate good relations in this country. I want to refer in particular to a speech which was recently made by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, a speech in which he even threatened to go abroad and continue his work there if nothing happened in South Africa. This is instigation, to say the least, instead of building good relations. Even Chief Phatudi and Dr. Motlana, of Soweto, have made statements which indicate that they are still bedevilling relations in South Africa.

Even the newspapers of the Black people are interlaced with negative reporting, which bedevil relations in this country. For instance, we can think of the sorrowful stories that appear in newspapers, stories about the ill-treatment of Black people by the police, etc. We can also think of how certain Black individuals are acting these days. I want to refer to a specific incident that took place last week.

I was standing on a street corner, and a truck, a fairly large one, approached at quite a high speed. A Black man was riding a bicycle just in front of the truck, and suddenly he swerved right in front of it. The White truck driver had to swerve sharply, right off the road. In the process he mounted the pavement and a Black woman was fatally injured. The truck came to a halt practically inside a house. Then what happened? Another Black woman bystander immediately started swearing violently at the White man, who according to them, had killed the Black woman on purpose. This caused me to realize once again that those people are making no attempt whatsoever to help cultivate good relations.

We also have churchmen, Black churchmen, who are guilty of doing the same. For instance, there was the report in Die Transvaler yesterday in connection with what Rev. Sam Buti said at Hammanskraal. If this is not instigation to the worst degree, if this is not a serious bedevilling of good relations, I do not know what it is. He even says that the events at Silverton were heroic events to the Black man, whilst it was terrorism in the eyes of the Whites. He continues in this way. It is shocking even to read it. One cannot help wondering how far one ought to go in trying to cultivate good relations on the part of the Whites. I even want to accuse the official Opposition too. A good word seldom, if ever, comes from them to promote good relations. I want to refer specifically to the report in an English newspaper this morning and in The Argus this afternoon. I am referring to the statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to throwing open the traditional facilities of the Whites at Fernwood. [Interjections.] That statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was negative, to say the least, and was merely aimed at making political capital and bedevilling relations in this country. [Interjections.] Each one of us, particularly the Opposition and the Black people, must look at this matter once again. So much good can come of it if good relations can be established in this country.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of this debate, I feel it is probably being fair towards the Opposition to try to make a summary of the impressions that they created by their contributions. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must try to converse a little more quietly.

I think it would also be fitting for the Opposition to apply a similar criterion to this side of the House. In all fairness, one cannot but come to the conclusion that the contributions of hon. members of the official Opposition were lacking a central theme or definite direction. They made statements on an ad hoc basis concerning a number of ad hoc matters. On this side of the House, the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, the Chairman of the commission that is investigating consolidation, stressed a few matters very clearly.

It became clear, amongst other things, that this side of the House is endeavouring in a systematic way, by means of interdependence, economic co-operation and a definite statement on a political structure, to place the peoples of South Africa on such a footing that they can co-operate with one another in peace and harmony and develop side by side by doing so. It is in this context that I should like to express a few ideas about the concept of “citizenship”, as it is manifested in various topical pieces of legislation. I think it is unfair when opponents of this side of the House try to create the impression that the Government, and even the ruling party, are checkmated on the basis of this concept. Anyone who does so, is not taking into account the tremendous possibilities for development in a constellation of States. The one school of thought, which is given effect in legislation, such as Act No. 44 of 1949, corresponds approximately to the school of thought of the learned authors Wiechers and Verloren van Themaat. They consider the concepts of “citizenship”, “citizenship of a state” and “nationality” to be synonymous. That is why a definite distinction is not being drawn in this legislation between the various population groups, although a distinction is being drawn throughout with regard to the claim for rights and obligations as well as the claim for protection by a specific authority. However, times change, and various academics have published their individual philosophies. I am thinking specifically of Prof. Olivier and Prof. Venter who favour the concept that is given effect to in Act 26 of 1970, particularly section 2(4) of that legislation. This provides, on the one hand, for political rights to be exercised in a specific area and on the other, for certain international aspects to be dealt with. In the hon. the Minister’s statements today, it was very clear that the possibility is being created for a greater Southern African identity to develop in order to deal with and accommodate certain practical arrangements. Thirdly, there are the three pieces of status legislation as applied in the relations between the Republic of South Africa, the Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, respectively. Consequently, it is very clear that the concept of “nationality”, particularly as introduced into the academic debate by Messrs. Venter and Olivier, is a concept that applies in the sphere of international law and which is predominantly concerned with inter-State relations. The concept of “citizenship”, on the other hand, is a concept of constitutional law that deals with relations between the authority and the subject.

If we apply these principles to the constellation of States, it is very clear that three matters in particular gain prominence. The citizenship matter can be dealt with effectively in a constellation of States modelled on confederal lines. However, it is very clear that we have to strive to bring about an overriding identity or nationality for all participating partners by way of an agreement on these confederal lines. Such an overriding Southern African identity cannot be brought about overnight, but it is something that must grow within us, not only in order to gain trust, but also to enable us to retain mutual trust. Secondly, I want to put it to the consideration of the hon. the Minister, with respect, whether it would not be a suitable start if one tried to bring the legislation in question, viz. the citizenship legislation of 1949, the legislation concerning citizenship of the national States of 1970 and the relevant section of the status legislation, terminologically into line with this approach in question, because in this way we will be able to create political certainty and we will succeed in eliminating unnecessary confusion concerning these concepts. The primary objective remains to lead population groups to independent Statehood. In this way, every nation can exercise its right to self-determination to the full without any doubt. The bricks of a confederation or a confederation of States are the independent States. I think that what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is striving for in asking for interdependence, economic co-operation and political certainty, can all be included within the scheme of such a political framework linked to a Southern African identity.

Mr. Chairman, very often towards the end of a long debate the standard goes down, but having listened to the last few contributions, I must confess that it seems to me that, unlike some other Wednesday nights I have spent in the House, the standard has gone up and up. [Interjections.] It is very difficult to maintain that standard, but I shall try. I want to say immediately to the hon. member for Krugersdorp that his exposition on citizenship was very interesting although somewhat tortuous. I would suggest that one of the worst things the National Party Government has ever done was to take away a man’s citizenship. There are many hundreds of thousands of Black people who are now desperately concerned about retaining full citizenship or indeed discovering, for the first time perhaps, the full implications of what it means to be a full citizen of South Africa.

The hon. member for Virginia delivered a very interesting speech on Inkatha. It demonstrated, for me at least, how wide the gap is between his and my understanding of culture.

I can understand that.

If the hon. the Minister will only listen I will try to help him a little more. I believe Inkatha has demonstrated, in the first place, that it is possible to have a cultural movement which is not totally exclusive, without losing out on the side of culture. This is why it has been such a tragedy, because the definition of culture, in the eyes of Government members, has been so very narrow and so confined. Therefore they cannot understand why it is possible for the Zulu to retain all his pride in his culture and yet extend that and become inclusive rather than exclusive. Secondly, I believe that the Inkatha movement has come to be, as has been suggested here tonight, a political organization, simply because there is a vacuum in the South African context which has to be filled. That vacuum is that the Zulu people, under the leadership of Gatsha Buthelezi, are determined to find their full political rights within South Africa, which after all is their right and their due. [Interjections.] I wish I had more time to develop this theme, because I believe the hon. member for Virginia has made an important contribution to the debate.

I would like to address the hon. the Minister more specifically on a problem in the Western Cape. The contributions made by the hon. members for Bellville and False Bay were quite remarkable. What I found most remarkable is that the hon. the Minister, with his usual dexterity, was able to take both these contributions, which were quite different in many ways, and yet regard them as being exactly parallel. I recall the hon. the Minister saying that he was very grateful for the responsible way in which they approached these problems. However, I want to say that the two hon. members approached these problems in a different kind of way and I would find myself very much more closely allied with the thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Bellville than I would with the views of the hon. member for False Bay. [Interjections.] I believe that may be irresponsible because it may not help the hon. member for Bellville very much. Nevertheless, I am prepared to argue the merits of the case.

I want to talk about the Coloured labour preference area in the Western Cape. The fact that the National Manpower Commission has decided to refer the matter to a committee, as a matter of some urgency, is to be welcomed. I believe there is new thinking, which indeed we heard in the debate this afternoon, but I would like to hear something a little more specific from the hon. the Minister rather than the general, nice, warm glow that we have had from the hon. the Minister in the debate during the last two days. The retention of the Western Cape as a labour preference area for Coloureds and Whites is not—I would like the hon. the Minister to listen to this and to ignore the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs—in accordance with the Government’s acceptance of the goals laid down by the Riekert Commission. There is a direct contradiction here that has to be resolved. One remembers that it was only a short while ago, in 1962, that the Government announced that there was going to be a specific area with specific boundaries. Only in 1965 did certain regulations determine that employers in the Western Cape had to apply for the use of Coloured labour to the Department of Labour. The employment of Blacks is allowed at the moment only where suitable Coloured labour is not available.

One of the arguments on which this has rested is that one has to protect the Coloured worker because the employer will opt for so-called cheap Black labour. In a very up-to-date recent survey, conducted by Prof. S. P. Cilliers, it was quite clear that employers in no way differentiated in wages between Black and Coloured employees. So that argument falls by the way. Secondly, more than 90% of the companies involved in the survey said that the economy in the Western Cape would suffer if there was a reduction in the supply of Black labour. The most important point I want to try to make to the hon. the Minister is that the restrictions contained in this policy have caused considerable hardship and bitterness, not amongst the so-called illegal Blacks—and this is the point that I think the hon. member for Bellville was trying to make— but amongst the Black people who are living in the Western Cape and who are here legally. I believe they are amongst the most deprived Black people in this country. They are not regarded in the same light as those in the rest of South Africa. They do not have any of the leasehold rights that are allowed for other people. They are here legally, but they are deprived of the security which is given freely to Blacks living elsewhere. I therefore make a special plea to the hon. the Minister. In all the many places that he has talked, and in all the many statements he has made, has he honestly believed that it is right to deprive the Black people in the Western Cape, who are living here legally and have been living here for a very long time, of basic security, of basic family rights and of basic housing? The hon. the Minister has received many invitations, and I am sure that he will get many more, but I invite him to the Western Cape to see Langa, Guguletu and Nyanga. I want him to see the single housing and the disgusting condition of the hostels there. If he accepted my invitation I believe that he would not sleep for more than two nights. It is a bad situation that breeds an atmosphere which cannot be good for good relations in South Africa. If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to do anything else, he must at least give the Blacks who are living in the Western Cape the same basic rights that are now being extended to Blacks who are living elsewhere. After all, the Western Cape is part of South Africa, and the Black people who have been living here since long before the turn of the century are part of South Africa. I believe that the hon. the Minister is only going to begin to resolve this problem if he starts there, because one cannot have the basic schooling, the basic housing or the infrastructure within the townships as they exist now. I am not referring to the new ones. I am not talking about Crossroads now. I am talking about the people who have been living here for a long time. I urge the hon. the Minister to give his urgent attention to this group of people as well.

Mr. Chairman, while listening to the hon. member for Pinelands tonight, I could not help thinking back to a speech that he made in this House two years ago, just after the 1976 riots. I pointed out very clearly to the hon. member that statements by that party are, in fact, counter-productive. By the efforts that they make, they intend approaching their fellow man on a horizontal level, on a merely humanistic level, on a liberal level, so that they can uplift the Blacks in South Africa or bring about cultural identity amongst the people of colour in that way. The hon. member for Pinelands knows as well as I do tonight that one cannot do this if one enters into negotiation with a person of a different nation, who is proud of his nation, if one does so from a liberal, humanistically orientated angle.

Why do you not try talking about a Christian approach for once?

One can only do so when one recognizes the other person as a full-fledged person, someone who is proud of his heritage. However, now the hon. member is accusing the Government of all sorts of things, as if the Government has done nothing on the labour level—he referred to wages—and on the education level —the hon. member also referred to the schools and the training of people of colour in South Africa. I can just tell the hon. member for his information that 75% of all Black children were attending school in the Republic of South Africa by the end of 1979, and that there was an increase of 537% between 1967 and 1977. I am excluding Bophuthatswana and the Transkei when I mention these figures. It is easy to go and pick certain data from the trees on the Cape Flats, as if this Government has not turned the Cape Flats into a flower garden. The hon. member will see this if he is prepared to go and look at what Mitchell’s Plain and several other places in the country look like. They are not interested in what this Government has been doing with honesty, hard work and ingenuity for the people of colour in this country, for the very reason that we rose from the ashes of the past and understand what it means to be the underdog.

I am very grateful that I am not in the company of the hon. member for Pinelands on that side of the House tonight. Let us understand one another very clearly tonight. The idea of the hon. member for Pinelands and those who think like him, is imbedded in a sub-culture and when one is wearing blinkers and tries to observe other cultures from one’s position within a sub-culture, one is absolutely one-eyed and not even able to look over one’s back like a chameleon. One looks straight ahead like a donkey.

One can analyse what is at the basis of this. Tonight we were dealing here with a philosophy of life and a world philosophy. The hon. member for Pinelands can learn a great deal from what the hon. member for Virginia and other hon. members said about the cultures of other nations. The hon. member for Mooi River, as an English-speaking person, set an example of a well-balanced view to the hon. member for Pinelands, who is also English speaking. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also maintained a well-balanced view.

I want to come back to the subject that I actually want to discuss tonight, but first of all I want to say that when I look at the hon. member for Pinelands and his party, I see that they are suffering from the same problem as the Herstigte Nasionale Party. Whether one is hyper-rightist or hyperleftist, one remains hyper. One overreacts. When the circle is completed, those two points meet. The hon. member may look at the NP that is following a straight path and is not ashamed of its identity, and will therefore do everything in its power to place the national structure in South Africa on a positive, constructive foundation.

I just want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a matter briefly, without expecting him to reply to it, because the Central Consolidation Commission is investigating it. I refer very briefly to the corridor at Brits, which lies mainly between Brits and Koedoeskop in the Crocodile River Valley, with the two large blocks of Bophuthatswana on either side. On the one side is the large city, Makokstad, and on the other side, the Klipvoor Dam forms a boundary.

To put a very ticklish matter in a nutshell, I want to say in the first place that I am 100% in agreement with the hon. the Prime Minister’s standpoint with regard to consolidation, that it should be sensible and that personal interest should not take precedence over national interest. However, I feel it would be simply rational in this case to take an objective look at this situation where possible. I want to make a suggestion which could possibly be implemented elsewhere in the country.

You are a rational Nationalist.

I hear that the hon. member for Bryanston is suffering from the same disease as the hon. member for Pinelands. When he shakes his head, liberalism falls out of both his ears.

There is a national, or military road running along the Crocodile River through the poort near Assen between Brits and Koedoeskop. Next to it there is a powerline. A railway line is also under construction there. Since Bophuthatswana cannot be physically consolidated into a unit State for a variety of reasons, I foresee that both the White and Black community in the Republic and Bophuthatswana can best be served by the construction of a national road that will cross the existing road which runs from south to north. A clover-leaf should be built where the two roads intersect, to serve as an international control point between the two countries, so that when Mr. Molefi in one part of Bophuthatswana wants to visit Mr. Molape in another part of Bophuthatswana, he can do so without any trouble and when Du Plessis want to visit Mr….

Boraine!

… Boraine in solitary confinement in the Bushveld, he can also go his way undisturbed. When both States have to exercise control, it can be done at that point. Now I want to ask, for these and many other reasons, that the corridor from Brits should not to be closed. This possibility must please be considered. I want to motivate it. If for instance it is possible in Berlin, 170 km within the DBR, why can such a corridor and control point not be created between these separate sections to the benefit of all groups, which will be acceptable to both White and Black? This is the request I want to make. I hope that the commission, for whom I have a great deal of appreciation and whom I have informed by means of my letter of request, will take very serious note of this.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brits is still making sturdy representations on behalf of his constituency here. The hon. member is also a person of whom his voters may rightfully be proud.

During this debate the Opposition criticized us a great deal, on subjects covering a very broad spectrum. On this side of the House, the hon. the Minister supported by his two competent Deputies, asked the Opposition for co-operation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister now that I think this will be in vain until such time as the Opposition has changed its attitude towards consolidation.

We heard complaints here about the resettlement of people. Now I want to ask the Opposition how one can consolidate if one may not resettle people. My White voters were resettled to make place for Black people. Now I want to say that it is the civil duty of every White person to approach the question of the consolidation of Black land in a positive way. I shall motivate this statement. I made it on the basis of the fact that the consolidation of the homelands is implementing Act No. 18 of 1936 in today’s language, viz. the Native Trust and Land Act. This Act should be an important one for all of us. Mr. Van Coller, a member of the UP coalition and subsequently a UP member and Speaker of the House of the Assembly, said the following during the Second Reading debate of the Bill. I quote (Hansard, Vol. 26, col. 2824)—

Thus the White man gave his word of honour to the Black man of South Africa with regard to obtaining land.

Was it Rudyard Kipling who said that?

I asked the hon. PFP: What is that party doing to the word of honour of the White man?

That was a United Party Act and must be implemented.

After all, the PFP rejects the 1936 Act in its entirety. [Interjections.] I ask the NRP too: What are they doing to the 1936 Act, and what is the NRP doing to the word of honour of the White man? [Interjections.] The attitude of the HNP is just as deplorable, because they are trying to broadcast the untruths; the absolute, utter nonsense, that consolidation has been completed and that South Africa has been unrecognizably cut up. [Interjections.] It is as if there is a choir, led by the HNP and others, who are proclaiming from the rooftops that this Botha Government initiated consolidation. Surely this is not true. The Gen. Louis Botha Government initiated it. It was the Coalition Government that introduced and passed this legislation in 1936. The United Party maintained it subsequently. [Interjections.] Previous NP Governments have amended the Act 33 times already, in order to give it better effect.

The Botha Government of today is trying to give concrete effect to it, so that the provisions thereof can be implemented meaningfully. The Government is still accepting the challenge, like other Governments of South Africa before it. It knows its duty and is aware of its task.

The above-mentioned 1936 Act replaced the Native Land Act of 1913 as principal Act. This Act laid down the principle of territorial division of land in the possession of Whites and non-Whites. This was the putting into effect of the recommendations of the South African Native Commission, which sat from 1903 to 1905; in other words the 1913 Act laid down the division, as it was prior to Union. The total area, in round figures, was 10,4 million morgen. The Minister in question who introduced the Second Reading of the 1936 Bill, said that the 1913 Act should not be considered as a final delimination of land for the Natives, but it was meant as an interim measure “to check the indiscriminate occupation of land by Europeans and Natives”.

This 1936 Act contains the consolidation principle, in today’s idiom. This Act has a long history. One must see consolidation in the light of the fact that it was founded on the philosophy of life our nation has professed since the previous century. Whilst South Africa still consisted of four conquered colonies, the South African Native Commission worked on this land matter from 1903 to 1905. This was laid down during the time of the UP Government, under Gen. Louis Botha, by the Act of 1913. It is considered as a point of departure for the delimination of Black land, which we know today as the consolidation of the homelands. In terms of this Act the Beaumont Commission was appointed to investigate which additional areas should be set aside for occupation by Blacks.

In 1917, the recommendations of the Beaumont Commission were included in the Native Affairs Bill, which was referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs. The committee was unable to accept the recommendations of the Beaumont Commission in their existing form, and Gen. Botha then decided not to introduce the Bill. Consequently the matter was referred to local committees, who produced their reports in 1918. Nothing was done in the meantime. Only in 1936 was the Native Trust and Land Act passed by Parliament.

During the Second Reading debate, that Bill was discussed by various members of the coalition in a very positive way. Adv. J. G. Strijdom, who was the only Transvaal NP member of this House at the time, said the following in the same debate, on 30 April 1936, (Hansard, Vol. 26, col. 2753)—

Nor did Adv. F. C. Erasmus, the then NP member for Moorreesburg, have any objections to it. However, since the recommendations in question were made in 1916, the above-mentioned two gentlemen felt that a new commission should be appointed. They were of the opinion that the findings of 20 years previously were already obsolete and that the matter should be investigated once again. Therefore, if it was necessary to investigate the matter once again in 1936, after a space of 20 years, how much more necessary is it not to do so today, 64 years after 1916? That is why I believe that every citizen of South Africa should pay tribute to the hon. the Prime Minister for his new approach to the task of consolidation. Every citizen of the country should also support the Van der Walt Commission and its regional committees. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to attempt to bring the debate back to 1980 now. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Griqualand East made frequent references to the Act of 1936. I think one should point out that it definitely does not benefit the people of South Africa if we remain stuck at 1936. After all, it is a fact that 44 years have elapsed since 1936. Yet there are still fights and arguments in this House today about promises made in 1936. Just think how ridiculous it would be if people were still to argue in 2024 about promises we made in 1980. [Interjections.] Whether they were objectives or promises is not relevant.

†I should like to refer briefly no to something which, I believe, is important. During the last three years the name of this department has been changed at least three times. The name of the old Department of Bantu Administration and Development was changed into the Department of Plural Relations and Development. That, in turn, became the Department of Co-operation and Development, the name under which it is currently known. It is not my intention to ridicule the department in any way. What I should like to point out is that this at least indicates that since the Soweto riots of 1976 there has been a greater awareness of Black relations on the part of the Government. If one wants to be honest one has to admit that there is a greater degree of sensitivity towards the feelings of Black people. That has been clearly displayed by the Government over the past two or three years. This could be the basic reason why the name of the department has repeatedly been changed.

*I do not wish to belittle it. Some of the names were indeed unsuitable. But I am mentioning this only as an indication of the fact that the Government has at least made an attempt to acknowledge that certain views held in the past were probably wrong, and that things presented as being right were probably wrong. I believe today we have created a very good climate for change. The question which we have to answer for ourselves in this House in 1980 is this: Will the Government be prepared to utilize this existing climate for change to the full and be prepared to effect changes which, as one says, cut to the bone, changes which sound as if they might be painful and which are, in fact, going to be painful but which are absolutely essential for the survival of all of us.

†I know that the Government at present has its attention occupied by a number of matters that are important in terms of its policy. They are busy with the consolidation plans, they are busy with the improvement of the quality of life of Blacks in urban areas, and we have heard about the miracle of electric lights being switched on in Soweto. We know of changes in the field of sport, in labour and in the sphere of social activity. These are indeed important, but the most imperative changes are those in the field of constitutional development. These changes, as far as we are concerned, should be changes to accommodate the Blacks who find themselves permanently outside the homelands. Sooner or later the Government must come to grips with this problem. As I have said, the most imperative problem is that of constitutionally accommodating those people who permanently live outside the homelands.

Do you want them to come and sit here?

That hon. member knows that they are living here on a permanent basis.

Do you want them to come and sit in this Parliament? Simply say “Yes” or “No”.

That is not the issue at all. I could still have some measure of understanding or appreciation for the Government’s argument about whether the urban Blacks were permanent or not. Those days are gone, however. There is not a single nationalist who will advance a single argument advocating that the urban Blacks or the Blacks outside the homelands are not here on a permanent basis. [Interjections.] There is no longer any excuse for that. The problem is simply one of accommodating the political aspirations of the urban blacks meaningfully. I do not know what might result from the deliberations of the Schlebusch Commission, but at this stage the only thing in the offing is the fact that through community councils these people are being offered the ultimate enjoyment, where they live, of political rights at a higher than municipal level. In 1980 that is totally inadequate. The problem is far greater than that. If the solution were merely the granting of political rights at a level slightly higher than the municipal level, then South Africa never had a problem.

It has also been said that the urban Blacks can fulfill their political aspirations in terms of the hon. the Prime Minister’s constellation of States. The only official statement in this regard seems to indicate that they will be there as observers. Yesterday the hon. the Minister spent quite a lot of time warning us not to create, in the minds of people, the Utopian ideal. If he thinks, however, that for a Black man happiness is enjoying political rights at a slightly higher level than municipal level, that happiness is being an observer—not an active participant —in a constellation of States and that happiness is accepting far greater responsibility for administrative matters such as education without having a direct say in the affairs of, or a link with, the body that really appropriates the money, he is living in a Utopia.

On Cloud 9!

On Cloud 9. We know that happiness will be to switch on the lights in Soweto, but as my leader said earlier on, it is not purely a matter of material improvement. Ultimately it is a question of whether one can tackle the political problems.

Here we come to the most important question. To bring about real improvement and to accommodate them politically, one will have to identify the true leaders. Who are the true leaders of the urban Blacks today? I am not going to get involved in an Inkatha argument, nor am I going to say that it is a matter of Mandela versus Dr. Motlana. Nevertheless, we have to make a choice. With whom are we finally going to negotiate? Are we going to negotiate with elected leaders? Are we going to negotiate with self-appointed leaders? Worse still, are we eventually going to be forced to negotiate with leaders who have just been appointed by the media? Or—and this is the fourth possibility—are we ultimately going to be forced to negotiate with a leader who may sit on our border and be recognized outside this country? Sir, it is within the means of the Government to create the opportunity to have that leadership, by today creating the instruments through which one can elect those leaders, through which those leaders can emerge in South Africa. Of all the things we have been discussing here, I really think that that is the greatest challenge. It is important that we should come to grips with the 1936 Land Act and the question of consolidation and it is important that we come to grips with and find solutions to all the socio-economic problems that are facing us, but what is finally of the utmost importance is that we must accommodate all the elements of the society in which we live today. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, with reference to Black politics there are some myths that should be exploded to put the perspective right.

A few days ago in Lagos the head of the Organization for African Unity exclaimed: “Africa is dying.” He continued to enumerate a long list of statistics indicating retrogression, decay, burgeoning debts, food shortages and hunger. Contrast that with our situation, where we believe we are beginning really to start living.

Secondly, what in fact did the present Government inherit in 1948? It inherited a White democracy, but only a White democracy. It inherited discrimination throughout the total spectrum of the nation. It inherited slums, many slum areas all over the country. It also inherited millions of Black people queueing up for jobs. None of them were clubbed down or pulled in by the short hairs into the maelstrom of development.

They offered their services willingly, freely and for a pittance. Why do the majority of Whites refuse or reject the concept of a “one man, one vote” approach in a unitary State? They only needed to take one look at “the history of man” and that was enough. Take Europe. Once it was one great Roman Empire, but ultimately it divided up in a much more watertight fashion than we ever dreamt of. Would anyone today consider it a practical proposition to integrate the difficult Dutch with the dogmatic Germans? Take Scandinavia. In their “holiness” they denounce us, but they forget that they only achieved peace in their environment after they split the monarchy into three. Take India and Pakistan. They killed a million people before they decided to go their own separate ways. Take Burundi. Take Nigeria, where they killed 2½ million people. In Angola they are still fighting and killing. Take Israel and Palestine, Scotland and Wales, Ireland or Chad: Why do so many of them try to divide up or separate? It is because the record of efforts towards a unitary State for diverse people, where both sides do not wish to integrate, is a painfully murderous and disastrous one.

Who is suggesting that?

That is history and it is fact. What, in fact, do we really aim at, in an evolutionary manner? Nothing but the European model which they hope to realize ultimately.

But, have the Whites always behaved in a just and fair manner? I do not believe so. I believe the Blacks certainly have many, many reasons to feel unhappy and to bargain and quarrel. However, I fail to understand the almost fanatical campaign, inspired mostly by outsiders, for us to have one big State for all of us under one smart president, rather than, say, 10 able, eminent men who can lead their clearly identifiable nations to prosperity and achievement. Why not? Might the alternative not be unmanageable?

I do not believe that there is really a lack of self-confidence or a fear on the part of those concerned that they may fail in their efforts to achieve success. I believe that they are being misled by their enemies who are basically also our enemies. There are many examples in the world of poor, small nations, without resources, who made good and achieved great things. Take Japan or Taiwan, for example, or even Malawi which was once the poorest country in Africa.

Do we not believe in the free enterprise system? It is the same principle we must strive for in this context. Do the campaigners for a unitary State really believe that the poor, underdeveloped peoples could achieve success under a system of free competition with the developed peoples, or are they perhaps aiming at not creating new wealth, but only redistributing the existing wealth of the nation, simply through numerical political domination?

All my life I have been on record as being against discrimination; and I do not believe in excessive interference with the personal freedoms of people.

You are in the wrong party.

I do believe, however, that we have a situation which we do not want to be similar to that of Brazil, for example. What is the record of Brazil? Out of a total population of 115 million, 50% are non-White. In their federal parliament consisting of 487 members the non-Whites have only two seats. Although the latter represent 50% of the total population, only 5% of military commissions are held by them and only 3% of all civil service and university appointments are in their hands.

Is it not worthwhile to find a country like South Africa offering every conceivable form of assistance to underdeveloped people without the fear of domination or a takeover? I would say that this is a God given opportunity in the present world context. To be a democracy, it has been proved that a nation needs minimum standards of training, education and sophistication, which are not acquired overnight. That should be the first priority on the African continent where, during the last ten years, the population has increased by 76 million whereas food production has decreased by some 10%.

Diverse people should not be forced, one-sidedly, to either stay united or to be integrated. Why should they, unless it is for the personal aggrandisement of some fanatic or fanatics? Why should we not go for a system of neither the tyranny of the minorities nor the tyranny of the majorities? Why should we not go for the proven, successful, free-enterprise system, also in the political, constitutional arena, and on the basis of free and natural identification, on the basis of merit and on the basis of co-operation on an equal basis?

Which party do you belong to?

I believe that we in South Africa have started to construct the framework for our future with our constellation concept. We have set an example by planning and working at a model that could, in the years to come, be a model for many other parts of the world. I believe that we must spell out the myths I have mentioned, fearlessly, but in a nice, friendly manner, through more communication over a broader spectrum of the total nation. We have neglected communication over many years now. We should step up communication between the country areas and the cities and between the Blacks and the Whites, right across the total spectrum of our nation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish I had time to indulge in a friendly little chat with the hon. member for Pinetown, but I have a very short period and I have other matters to raise. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am very disappointed indeed to have listened to the reply that he gave to us this afternoon. We had words, words and more words, and all I can say, with Shakespeare, is that no matter if they are from the heart, the fact is that those words told us very little, unfortunately. I am now hoping, the polling booths at Fauresmith being closed, that maybe we shall get something that is of a little more practical use, because there is no doubt that everybody has been very cautious over the last two days, especially in speeches in this House, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it is the by-election in the Orange Free State …

You must have been in orbit when I was speaking this afternoon.

No, unfortunately not. I wish I had been in orbit. I would have spared myself a lot of suffering.

Are you going to read what I said?

The hon. the Minister hardly answered a single question from this side of the House. He told us about a lot of things that are being planned, houses that are being planned here and houses that are being planned there, but he did not give us an indication of a single discriminatory law that he intends to repeal this session, not one.

I explained fully what the position is.

No, I am sorry, but the hon. the Minister told us that he is not intending to do anything about those things. It is no good telling us to be cautious about what we say. The hon. the Minister made a lot of promises when he was very incautious, and now it is up to him to make good those promises. He has not given us an indication of a single discriminatory law that he intends repealing this year, not one.

You must have been out of the House.

I sat in this House for the solid hour and a half that the hon. the Minister spoke.

I am certainly not going over the same speech again.

He did not tell us anything about any of the recommendations of the Riekert Commission that I asked him about, or whether he was going to repeal the curfew law. Is he? I ask him now.

But you put a question to me a week or so ago and I replied fully to it.

Yes, and the hon. the Minister said there was no answer. He said the matter was still under consideration, or words to that effect.

Do you want me to say it is not if it is?

No, I want him to say he is going to repeal the curfew law. I want him to give a positive response to a question to which the Government’s own White Paper gave an answer a whole year ago. There is no excuse for not repealing the curfew regulations. I know that the hon. the Minister does not agree with my party on the handling of influx control. I know that, but the Government agrees that curfew should be repealed, and yet we have not even got that specific undertaking from him. The hon. the Minister said that we must be cautious in our objection of the raising of rents and services in the townships. It is not a case of being cautious in objecting to those things. Could I have the hon. the Minister’s attention just for these last few minutes?

You are talking nonsense.

No, I am not talking nonsense. I am now quoting comments made by Prof. Nel of Unisa about 10% being the maximum that the urban Black people can pay out of their income for rent and services. The hon. the Minister said that we must accept 25%. That is for a highly developed country. That is not for a country like South Africa where the majority of people in the urban areas have incomes that are not even R200 per month. I want to tell the hon. the Minister—and as a sociologist, he ought to know this—that it is the median figure he should be looking at and not the average figure, because it needs one millionaire like Tshabalala in Soweto to throw the whole picture of average incomes out. He must use the median, which is the cluster figure, the figure represented by the majority of people in that area. The hon. the Minister keeps talking about average figures, and they are no good when one is assessing what people are able to pay in rent. This is indeed an explosive issue, and that is why we raise it. We ask the hon. the Minister to be extremely careful before he allows these enormous increases in rent and services in an area like Soweto.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how it happens that the six Boards, which have got into trouble by investing money in Rand Bank which has gone bust, had any money to invest at all? That is the burning question. Here we have areas that are short of houses and services, that do not have any infrastructure and that need maintenance expenditure desperately. The maintenance of all these urban townships has run down desperately since the West Rand, the East Rand, the Midlands and all the boards took over from the municipalities. Then we find that these boards have unspent money amounting to R4 million to invest in Rand Bank. I am not even going to go into the question of the advisability or otherwise of having invested in that particular bank. That I leave to the Auditor-General and the special inquiry. I want to know how come they had any money over at all. Why are they not spending the money—which in any case is far too little—allocated to them on these desperately needed services? I want an answer to that. I do not want flights of fancy from the hon. the Minister. I do not want to hear about his philosophy because I know it backwards. I want an answer to a few practical questions which I am putting. I want to know if the hon. the Minister is prepared to consider a suggestion that was made in Mr. Kane-Berman’s paper to the Institute of Race Relations. It was a practical suggestion. Like the development of assistance being given to the Black homelands, he asks, would the hon. the Minister consider Pretoria taking the financial responsibility for the salaries of White officials who have been seconded from the Administration Boards to the Community Councils, because that would help enormously in off-setting some of the deficit? It has been done as a development assistance scheme for the homelands, so why can it not be done for the urban Black townships? I also want to ask the hon. the Minister why it is that all the taxes collected from Black people, the general income tax, which was an amount of R66 million last year, goes to the homelands. Why is at least some of that money— because most of it is raised from Blacks working in the urban areas—not going to all the urban townships? I am not only talking about Soweto. I am talking about all the urban townships, because I believe that this is something that ought to be done.

Finally, I want to say a few words to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development. I wonder if he would give me his attention just for a moment. I have a letter about him from somebody who knows the re-settlement areas very well indeed. This is what the letter says—

He denied that they were dumped in the veld.

I still deny it.

He also denied that anybody was suffering real hardship in the veld and said that provision had been made for schools, jobs, etc. This letter goes on to ask what jobs are available in the resettlement areas. There are about 30 of those. This lady went on to say—

I have seen that area myself. There are one or two industries there, but they provide jobs for only a few hundred people. This lady further said that at Ilengi—and the hon. the Deputy Minister must tell me whether this is true or not—there are between 15 000 and 20 000 people and that the only jobs that are provided there are the few that are needed to maintain the houses and the local area itself. For the rest, they are all dependent on contract labour, which is of course very difficult for people to obtain these days, because there is still widespread unemployment.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether jobs are being provided in these resettlement areas. He must also tell me what is the good of building thousands of houses in these “closer” resettlement areas simply to accommodate people who have been removed from other housing in the so-called Black spots. It is exactly like the removals under the Group Areas Act. Settled communities are uprooted in the name of ideology and in the name of separate development and moved elsewhere. New houses have to be built for those people while the old houses are broken down. It is on that the Government is spending too much. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of this debate yesterday, 40 speakers have participated in it. At the beginning of my reply now, I should just like to extend many thanks to all who made a positive contribution in this debate. I have very great appreciation for that.

The hon. member for Houghton who has just resumed her seat, has really upset me a little now by repeating the old refrain “words, words, words” at the end of the debate—she also addressed the refrain “promises, promises, promises” to me—a refrain which I have heard so many times now in the 17, 18 or 20 years during which I have been sitting here with her, being addressed to me and many other hon. members on this side. And then she also said that I had told her very little. This afternoon, in the hearing of the whole House—and it is recorded in Hansard—I devoted a large part of my reply to the question of the elimination of hurtful discrimination. I must tell hon. members that I have seldom in all my life been so astonished as I was at the remarks which the hon. member made towards the end of this debate. I must honestly say that I was absolutely astonished. In this debate I really do not want to talk politics unnecessarily, but the hon. member has made it so unavoidable for me that I must in fact do so now. Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi, whose name was mentioned quite a few times in this debate, had the following to say about that party—

You answer my questions.

He went on to say—

That hon. member was asking for it. I would not have quoted this, but she was asking for it. If it is then a question of “words, words, words”, then let us have “words, words, words”.

He continued—

[Interjections.] He went on to say—

That is what he said, not what I say—

That is what the hon. member for Houghton is now displaying in respect of me at the end of this debate. Surely it is not fair.

Tell me of one Act that you are going to repeal.

The hon. member asked a question in regard to the so-called “curfew law”. This is an important matter, one on which the Riekert Commission also made recommendations. My department is not the only one involved. Has the hon. member never discovered that other departments are also involved in this matter? If this matter is under discussion, surely I can only tell the truth in this House. The matter is under consideration. As far as my department is concerned, the matter has been disposed of, but as far as other departments are concerned, there are still problem areas involved. The reason why we are sitting on this side, is that we govern in a responsible way, and the reason why the hon. member for Houghton has been sitting in the Opposition for 25 years, is because she makes the kind of statement she made this afternoon and this evening. I object to it in the strongest terms.

You give everybody the vote and see how long you stay in power.

As far as the “curfew law” is concerned, when the various departments involved have disposed of that part which concerns them, an announcement will be made, as a responsible Government is supposed to do. We cannot do this before the time, because who would we be bluffing? We would be bluffing the entire country, and in whose interests would we then be acting?

Your White Paper accepted it.

It would not be in anyone’s interests. The hon. member need not pose as the only one who has an interest in the so-called “curfew law”. [Interjections.] There are many other people who have an equally great interest in it, and therefore it is not necessary for the hon. member to carry on about it as she has done.

Relax, Piet. Do not get so cross.

If your cause is bad, shout like hell!

I shall refer next to the question of Soweto tariffs. Who set about this question of the tariffs with a greater sense of responsibility than my department and I? I do not wish to discuss the entire matter now. It is not necessary. For months we have been acting with the greatest care and circumspection in respect of that matter, keeping closely in touch with the Black people and their leaders in Soweto. But now the hon. member for Houghton comes here and kicks up a fuss about this matter, after I had made an appeal to hon. members here in this debate to act carefully in respect of this matter. It is a delicate matter. I even went so far as to add that it was in the interests of the Black people of Soweto that any action taken should be taken with care. I say to the hon. member for Houghton that she is no longer acting in the interests of the Black people.

I am not interested in your opinion.

Because of her conduct here this evening, I can assure her—and I deal with the Black people all the time—that she is not acting in the interests of the Black people, and not even in the interests of her party’s supporters either.

She is simply seeking publicity.

I come now to the question asked by the hon. member in connection with the six boards. The reserve funds which the Administration Boards have at their disposal are intended in particular to meet future obligations with planned financing. Surely the hon. member ought to know that. The Administration Boards are semi-State organizations, not full-fledged State organizations. They are large organizations with a great deal of money and important interests which they have to look after. Consequently they act in a planned way. Any large organization will from time to time have funds to invest in certain things. They have obligations, for example in respect of housing loans which have to be repaid at specific times. Moreover, the money cannot be utilized to make up deficits on services and rentals. It is just not possible for the Administration Boards to do this. Therefore the boards had to invest the money somewhere. Or does the hon. member for Houghton think the members of the Administration Boards should have kept that money somewhere in their back pockets? Surely that money had to be invested somewhere. A report will be submitted on why that money was invested with the Randbank so that the Select Committee can deal further with this matter. The information I am giving the hon. member here comes from a person who has to appear before the Select Committee. On the basis of what he told me, I can therefore speak with absolute authority on this matter.

Here we now have a fine example of the ungrateful, and exceptionally difficult task which the Administration Boards have to perform. Instead of raising the matter in a nice way, the hon. member for Houghton once again made use of meaningless “words, words, words”, and unburdened herself of these allegations here, while the reply indicates quite clearly that there is a good explanation for this. If it should appear that any offence was committed, the Select Committee of Parliament will know what action to take. Now the hon. member has received her reply. She insisted on it; I gave it, and I hope she is satisfied.

The hon. member for Houghton also wanted to know whether Pretoria would accept the responsibility for the White officials who are to serve on the staff of the Community Council in Soweto. A few weeks ago I received a letter on this matter. I felt it was a matter which deserved consideration. To me it was a new idea; I had not thought of it before. We are expanding the entire system of Community Councils, as I tried to indicate here earlier this afternoon. We intend giving them full city status, in the true sense of the word. But this, too, we cannot dispose of so quickly that we are able to introduce legislation on it during the present session. On the question of whether Pretoria can accept responsibility for those officials, I asked the department to investigate the matter. I added that they must investigate the matter sympathetically. If we are able to do so, and if the funds for that purpose could be found, I said, it is an idea which would be worth while implementing. I am now waiting for a reply from the department. With this I think I have replied to all the questions asked by the hon. member for Houghton.

I should now like to reply briefly to the speeches of other hon. members who participated in the debate.

In the first place, with reference to a speech made by the hon. member for Albany, I wish to add something to the reply I made yesterday. I should very much like to emphasize that the hon. member for Albany made written and oral representations to me over a long period in regard to Fingo Village. If he had not made those representations, I think the decision which we were able to take on Fingo Village would probably not have been taken. That is why I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. member for the assistance which he rendered in this connection. My reason for specifically raising this is that it is a fine example of an hon. member who really takes an interest, not only in the voters whom he represents here, but also in the circumstances of other population groups in his constituency. Because he did so in such a nice way, I should very much like to mention it.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also made a fine, positive speech. He emphasized the new initiatives. He may as well explain them a little bit more to the hon. member for Houghton. It seems that not only was she not listening to me, she did not listen to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central either. Therefore I really do not know how we can bring these things home to the hon. member for Houghton. Reading does not seem to help. After all, these things are recorded in Hansard. Talking does not help either, because it is mere “words, words, words”. It seems that communication with her will have to take place in some other way. Apparently this House is not a channel of communication to explain these things to the hon. member. [Interjections.] I thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for his positive contribution.

I come now to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. He is an esteemed member of the Commission of Co-operation and Development. He makes a major contribution there, as he also does in this House. I also wish to thank him for his positive suggestion in connection with the development fund which he put forward here this afternoon. What the hon. member was advocating was in reality a system of project assistance as it is applicable in respect of the independent national States and, secondly, as required by the world bank, viz. that it should be done in a sophisticated system. Consequently the hon. member’s approach is quite correct. As he indicated, the Ministry of Finance has already promised an amount of R15 million for utilization on this basis. The intention is to orientate the self-governing national States in this way with this philosophy of project assistance. Consequently we intend accepting the hon. member’s suggestion and implementing it as soon as possible. I thank him sincerely for his approach to this matter. In that way the hon. member is in fact emphasizing, for those who wish to take cognizance of it, the measure of sophistication which we have already achieved in respect of Black administration in the Republic of South Africa. Anyone who knows anything about these matters will realize that if one has reached the point at which one can budget on a project basis, one has already made a vast amount of progress. But what I wish to emphasize is that it is in fact a compliment to the Black people, not only that they are able to do this, but also that they are able to show discipline by wishing to do it in this way.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East also made an important contribution. We know him to be a member who can make a neat, philosophical speech. He did not disappoint us this afternoon. He made a speech on constitutional development. As I have already found in the past, one has to go back and read his speeches again. Only then does one appreciate the real value of those speeches. He is not a man who merely talks, but a person who has made a thorough study of his subject. Consequently it was a well-considered contribution which the hon. member made here, and I thank him for it. I shall read his speech again, because I know from experience that one is not always able to evaluate his ideas fully at first glance.

I come now to the hon. member for Orange Grove. He apologized for not being able to be present here this evening. However, I should like to reply to the considerable number of questions he asked, some of which were quite important. Firstly I come to the Quail report. I have the report here. Actually, it is a report of the Ciskeian Government. In general I find it a very sound and valuable report. It is a report which is gaining considerable international recognition. Chief Minister Sebe informs me that he is receiving many requests from overseas for copies of the report. Hon. members would do well to look at the report. A formidable amount of information has been compiled in that report. Generally speaking the Ciskeian Government has reason to feel proud of that report. I do not agree with everything which is contained in the report. This side of the House definitely does not agree with many of these things, but in general I am able to say that the report is a very good one. I do not wish to say very much more about this matter, except that the Chief Minister of the Ciskei and I, through the Commissioner-General, have held detailed discussions with one another recently on certain matters pertaining to the report. There was correspondence between us as well, but at this stage it is not necessary to say anything further about the matter. If nothing unforeseen happens, I shall be visiting the Ciskei this coming Friday for further talks with Chief Minister Sebe in this connection.

The hon. member also discussed the Eastern Cape, and the difficulties there, I have very good information here, on the basis of which I can indicate what tremendous efforts we are making to render assistance, the amount of money we are investing in this region, the number of posts which have been created, etc. Hon. members can take my word for it that we are giving a great deal of attention to this area because I, personally, consider it to be a very sensitive area. If proper attention is not given to that area, trouble could develop there. I have no doubt about that at all.

I come next to the question of Evaton, to which the hon. member also referred. This also has a bearing on Fingo Village, and it is perhaps necessary for the House to take cognizance of a resolution on Evaton which was adopted by the Cabinet on 26 February. This refers to land ownership by Black people. If I quote the resolution of the Cabinet, hon. members will perhaps understand better what I meant yesterday when I pointed out, in reply to the hon. member for Albany, the problems in regard to Fingo Village and other similar places in this country. The resolution read—

1. (a) met die oog op slumopruiming daar te Evaton voortgegaan word met—
   1. (i) die opkoop van eiendomme wat te koop is; en
   2. (ii) die onteiening van eiendomme met die oog op onderverdeling, maar
2. (b) die Swartes wat tans eiendomsreg van die klein plasies het, by onteiening die keuse gegee word om hul eiendomsreg na een van die kleiner onderverdeelde persele oor te dra;
3. (c) die onderverdeelde persele wat nie onder eiendomsreg ingevolge (b) hierbo bewoon word nie, op die 99-jaarhuurpagstelsel bewoon kan word; en
4. (d) daar steeds getrag word om onderverdeelde eiendomme wat ingevolge (b) hierbo onder eiendomsreg bewoon word wat in die mark kom, op te koop met die oog op omskepping in huurpageiendomme.

Hon. members would do well to read what I have quoted here again. I can only say that it is an important resolution of the Cabinet, with many implications. It is once again an illustration of the goodwill of the Government, and its real desire to act in such a way that relations in this country improve. Consequently this is an important matter.

As far as Glenmore is concerned, the fact of the matter is that we really have our finger on the pulse there. As hon. members heard, the hon. the Deputy Minister recently paid another visit to that area. We are supplying food rations to the amount of R13 000 per month to that area. We are taking care of social amenities, such as housing, clinics, schools and shops. Pensions are being paid regularly. The district surgeon pays a weekly visit to Glenmore. After the hon. member spoke here, I asked one of our senior officials to contact the people there telephonically to report on the situation there. He reported back that the people there are, in general, happy and that the position there is under control. As far as the position of Glenmore in the long term is concerned, there are still certain problems. However, if it is possible to provide water on a large scale, greater development can take place there, provided this happens with the consent of the Ciskeian Government. They have other objectives and other priorities, and my department and I are adopting the attitude that we must respect the wishes of the Ciskeian Government in this connection. That is why we are taking this course of action in respect of this matter. In any event, I can assure hon. members that conditions are not too adverse there and that we shall continue to keep a weather eye open in this area.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development also discussed Glenmore and other important matters. Permit me, just in general, to inform this House—I do not have an opportunity to do this every day—that I personally am really proud of my two Deputy Ministers. These are men who are doing this work with great dedication and exceptional ability. Frequently it is ungrateful work. I can assure the House that they get very little sleep, and work very hard indeed. The firm and particularly competent conduct of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development can be held up as an example, and to me it is also a personal inspiration. The same goes for the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation. I wish to thank him, as well as to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation, who is not present here this evening and of whom I can in the same way speak with the highest appreciation, for the help which they have given me in such an excellent way. There is one quality of these two hon. gentlemen which I should very much like to single out, and that is the very sensitive way in which they deal with matters concerning the Black people. In this respect, too, they really set an example, and for that we thank them very sincerely.

In my opinion the hon. member for Mooi River made a very positive speech here this afternoon. It is really a pity that we no longer debate in that way in this House. I think that if we were able to do so, greater clarity would be achieved and we would be able to make more positive contributions towards the solution of this country’s problems. I have appreciation for the hon. member’s contribution and I wish to tell him that I shall give serious consideration to the suggestion he made for the creation of a fund, and so on. My department and I will give the matter serious consideration to see whether we cannot implement his suggestion. At first glance it would seem to me there really is something in his proposal, which is why I was interested in his contribution. He said: “We require a new factor in consolidation” and spoke of a “breath of fresh air on consolidation” here this afternoon, particularly from the chairman of the Consolidation Commission. We are really prepared to listen to and consider any sound proposals for solving this problem, and I wish to give him the assurance that we will not only consider his proposal, but other proposals as well. Once again I wish to express my appreciation for the very positive approach, not only of the chairman of the commission, but also of the entire Commission of Co-operation and Development. Hon. members can go and read what I said. These people are making a powerful contribution in connection with one of our greatest problems in these times, and I know what I am talking about.

I have known the hon. member for Stilfontein for longer, perhaps, than any other member in this House. He is a person who is truly not only a friend of the Black people, but also a person who knows the Black people. The Black people speak of him with appreciation, and he speaks of them with appreciation. I want to thank him for his fine contribution, and particularly for the example which he has set for more than the quarter century that I have known him, when it comes to these matters. Not only does he deal with these matters with the greatest sensitivity, but always sets a wonderful example in this connection.

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Virginia spoke about Inkatha. He pointed out that it is a cultural organization and that every nation is entitled to its own cultural organization. It is fitting and proper that we should take an interest in these matters and discuss them. I want to say at once that I cannot agree with everything which the hon. member said, and he will not take it amiss of me. Nevertheless I have great appreciation for the fact that he speaks about Inkatha. It is his opinion, and he is quite entitled to it. I have also come to know Inkatha fairly well over the years. If we and Inkatha understand each other, it augers well for all in South Africa. I have no doubt at all about that. So far Inkatha has acted with exceptional responsibility in Natal and in other parts of the Republic. We must not overlook this, and I wish to express my appreciation for it to Chief Minister Buthelezi as well as the leaders of Inkatha. We must not overlook this. They have again now, at the time of the school boycotts, made an appeal to Black children not to participate in it. What more do we want? With regard to the bus boycott in Vryburg, they were the people who put an end to it. In 1976, when the rest of the Republic was troubled with riots, there were no riots in Natal, owing to the actions of Inkatha. They apply an iron discipline on their people, and I do not think we should close our eyes to this. For the rest, however, I have appreciation for the contribution made by the hon. member for Virginia.

There is also a sensible provincial administration in Natal.

I do not wish to discuss that now. We can do so on another occasion.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said a very important thing here.

It was a good speech.

Yes, it is my honest opinion that he made an excellent speech. He said that we should “in a spirit of co-operation”: develop the “potential of the Blacks” properly. They must feel that they belong somewhere, otherwise we could be creating “a potential for revolution, and we must build a good and peaceful South Africa”. He also said that we could do this if we worked together. I wish to tell the hon. member that I cannot do it alone, but if we work together we can do it. There is no doubt about that at all. I should like to quote something else for the information of those hon. members who still feel like listening at this late hour. In any case, there are only a few minutes left. I do not like to do nothing but talking. In fact the older I get, the less I feel like talking, although I am compelled to talk. I would far rather do things than talk. In this regard there is a fine saying which I recently used when, according to the newspapers, there were 2,3 million Black people at the great mass meeting of Lekganyane in the holy city Morea and which went down very well with them, namely—

It means “Take it off the shelf, our dogs’ necks are tired from looking up at it”. In other words it means “Words are patient, but deeds are what really count.” This is true—deeds must be decisive.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus dealt with a very good theme and subject here, viz. the building of sound relations. He said it must come from both sides. That is true. But I just wish to add that one does not build sound relations by being disparaging, particularly not if one does not have all the facts at one’s disposal. I have no doubt at all that hon. members will readily agree with this. I greatly appreciate the hon. member raising the theme of sound relations here this evening.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp is a young man with great possibilities. He made a fine contribution on citizenship. Personally I have never thought of it in that way. He asked that I should consider whether an appropriate initial process would not be to bring the terminology of the relevant laws into line. This is a very positive idea of the hon. member, which simply emphasizes that if one studies a matter, one is able to put forward a positive suggestion and make a contribution. I shall take a personal look to see whether one cannot perhaps use this as a good starting point, i.e. to bring the terminology of the various laws into line. It is quite possible that the hon. member has placed his finger on an important aspect here this evening, which I myself had not yet even thought of.

We know the hon. member for Pinelands. He spoke about the Western Cape and the problem there. I do not wish to elaborate on this for long. He himself knows that the whole question of the labour preference policy is at present under consideration. There is probably nothing further I need tell him. I have already indicated that I shall, together with my two other colleagues take the initiative on the problems of the Western Cape. I do not think I need say any more about this. During the past 14 days I have held talks with the Cape Community Councils, under Mr. E. B. Lubelwana, a very competent chairman, and I shall within the next 14 days hold further talks with them. Consequently I am giving this matter my personal attention. I myself have been to Langa and Nyanga more than once, but I shall go there again because I get the impression, and I also get that impression from what hon. members on this side of the House said, that there has been considerable deterioration in recent times. We have already taken up this matter with the commissioner here in the Western Cape, and he has, for the past 14 days, been giving this matter very serious attention to see whether he can clear up the matter satisfactorily. I, personally shall undertake to look into the matter just as soon as I can, to see whether it is not possible to render assistance in this regard.

The hon. member for Brits served his constituency very well here this evening. On the question of the corridor there is no doubt at all that the commission will look into the matter. The hon. member must also put forward useful suggestions, and we shall consider these sympathetically. It was a positive contribution, and I say thank you very much for it.

The hon. member for Griqualand East was of course absolutely correct. How does one consolidate if one cannot resettle? So what he said was correct. The major problem is just that when one resettles, one should do so in such a way that it is not “forced removal”. One must do so in such a way that one has the co-operation of people and is able to do the necessary preparatory work properly. He went on to say that a positive approach should be adopted to this matter. That is most certainly true, and I endorse what the hon. member said here. If there was ever a matter in respect of which the word of the White man was at stake, it is this matter. We shall have to keep our word, because if the word of the White man is doubted, it is a very serious matter.

I should just, in addition, like to reply briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central. In my opinion he made an excellent contribution here, a contribution for which I have appreciation. I could just tell him that the Schlebusch Commission’s interim report is almost ready and will be tabled at any moment. It will contain a reply on some questions which the hon. member put, difficult and important questions, I can concede that, questions which cannot easily be replied to. The report of the Schlebusch Commission will in fact provide answers to certain questions asked by the hon. member. But it is a matter which we can discuss at our leisure when we have a little more time later on.

The hon. member for Pinetown, the last hon. member on whose speech I have to reply, also made an excellent contribution here. He said that neither the “tyranny of the minority”, nor the “tyranny of the majority” should apply, and he said that we should co-operate on a basis of merit and co-operation. I agree wholeheartedly with him. That is why we call this department the Department of Co-operation and Development. I honestly believe that the key word in connection with this whole matter which we have been discussing for the past two days, is the simple word “co-operation”. So I want to thank him very much indeed for his contribution.

Are hon. members aware that the real buying power of the Black people has increased from R1 780 million in 1970 to R3 296 million in 1979? This represents a growth of 85%, taking inflation into account, over this period of nine years. This is a powerful fact. Are hon. members aware that the per capita income of the various national States increased from R104 in 1970 to R326 in 1978? This represents an average growth rate of 21,9% per annum, or a real growth rate of 10,9% per annum. I am not saying that all the problems have been solved. But in a country where a Minister is able to furnish figures of this kind in a debate, things are not going too badly. There is no doubt about that at all. There are very few places which can boast with such figures such as those I have just furnished, figures which were achieved in spite of the problems which exist in this connection.

I should like to close on a note which is important and significant to me. I wish to refer to the 2,3 million Black people who were present at the mass rally in Morea. This was probably one of the greatest occasions I have ever experienced in my life. In a brilliant speech Bishop Lekganyane said, inter alia, the following, to more than 2 million people—

At the end of a long debate, what finer evidence can I give for the Black people than what I have just quoted here? [Interjections.] Perhaps that hon. member may not understand it, but this Black man concluded as follows—

This is my prayer as well, and that is why I can stand here as a witness to the team work between Whites and Blacks. As long as we continue to do so and keep the channels open, I promise a fine and good future for the Republic of South Africa.

Vote agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.