I move—

I second.

I object.

I want to say that the request to lay this Bill before the House has come from two important trade organizations, the S.A. Federation of Trade Unions and the Co-ordinating Council of Trade Unions, and also from the Steel Workers’ Union and the Mine Workers’ Union. After receiving the request I carefully considered whether I should bring this Bill before the House, and I came to the conclusion that these people had a case.

The reason why the workers want this Bill to be introduced is that many of the members of these organizations go to these chiropractors and are treated by them but they cannot submit their accounts to the medical aid funds and they wish to be placed in the position to do so.

The fact is that for more than 50 years these chiropractors have been allowed to continue practising in South Africa. For the information of the hon. member I wish to mention that just after the war the previous Government granted bursaries to 26 ex-Servicemen to go to America to study as chiropractors. In other words, some measure of State recognition already existed then. There are at present about 120 of these people. They continue to practise, and some people may think that it is not in the interest of the public, but while they are allowed to continue it is my opinion that it is in the interest of the public to give them legal recognition to regulate their own affairs and to prescribe certain minimum standards. While there are a large number of students overseas at present, I think that we should be practical and accept that these people have already been practising in South Africa for 50 years and that their numbers are increasing and that it is in the interest of the public, as well as of those people, for them to regulate their own profession, if it can be called a profession, and that it be placed under control and that minimum academic qualifications be prescribed for them.

Mr. Speaker, I object on the ground that this form of treatment is not in any way under control in regard to education in this country. There is no means of studying this particular form of treatment, and there is no means of knowing that when people arrive here and claim that they have this particular knowledge they are correct, and no check can be carried out. It is a well-known fact that in America, where a great deal of this work is carried out, there are correspondence colleges. People can obtain qualifications in this so-called art by writing letters and corresponding with people in America. They can obtain the qualification by paying a fee, and they are given a diploma without being required to have any knowledge whatever. If people are to deal with the health of the inhabitants of this country, they must be carefully trained to understand what to do as far as modern knowledge goes. No university in any European or African territory and possibly in America—I do not know if that is why I omit that country—but certainly in South Africa provides the slightest instruction along those lines. To allow this Bill to go through will be to allow people to deal with sick people suffering from malignant diseases, which these people are quite untrained to recognize. They want to be let loose on the population, to handle infectious diseases. This country is a healthy country on the whole, and that is so because the Department of Health through its doctors keeps a careful control over infectious disease.

Order! I would like to remind the hon. member that he can only give a brief explanation.

Well, I think I have given enough reasons for my opposition. It is the inability to obtain education and the inability to set a standard and the inability to recognize how these people obtain their qualifications.

In terms of Standing Order No. 41 (4), I now put the Question—

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 10 March.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the motion standing in my name—

Mr. Sneaker, we in the Progressive Party maintain that apartheid has failed. It failed on the day when the Prime Minister stated in the House on 12 April 1950 that the total apartheid advocated by the Afrikaans Churches would be ideal if it were practical at the present time. But it is not the policy of the Nationalist Party in view of the fact that our whole economic structure rests to such an extent on Bantu labour, and therefore it is impracticable. In those two sentences Dr. Malan, the then Prime Minister, demolished whatever claim the Nationalist Party could have had to a moral basis for their party. From that day the apartheid policy has stood revealed as a blatant policy of exploitation of the non-Whites in the service of White supremacy. Thus Mr. Strijdom was able to declare five years later almost to the day that—

The attempt by the present Prime Minister to lift the apartheid policy out of the morass, his new vision of Bantustans, sovereign independence and “eiesoortige ontwikkeling” with complete autonomy has failed, and it has failed because it was not a vision but a pipe-dream. The Prime Minister’s own followers would not allow him to translate his dream into reality. His own Minister of Bantu Administration made it clear in a speech at Potchefstroom in December 1960, that the Bantu homelands should be—these were his own words—

The Bantu in their homelands will be allowed to manage only their own internal affairs, and even that under the supervision of White Commissioners-General, a White Minister of Bantu Affairs and a White Standing Cabinet Committee. The only difference politically between the Bantu in the Bantustans and those in the rest of South Africa will be that the latter, in the Minister’s own words, “sal egter onder groter direkte beheer en administrasie van die blanke Regeringsinstansies staan as die Bantoe in hulle eie gebied”. The Prime Minister’s new vision of apartheid has failed because his party is not prepared to give up its dreams of White supremacy and baasskap over all the non-Whites.

Apartheid has also failed in the economic sphere. Not only is the Government unwilling to ask of the European the economic sacrifices entailed in any speedy and real development of the Bantu homelands, but it is also unwilling to demand the sacrifices that the Whites will have to make to bring about economic apartheid, or to end the dependence of our economy on non-White labour, or to make the economy of the so-called White South Africa independent of the purchasing power of the non-White. That economic dependence of the White on the non-White which ten years ago in Dr. Malan’s view made the ideal of apartheid impracticable, still obtains to-day and still makes any real apartheid nothing but a dream that can never be realized. This the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration also admitted in his address at Potchefstroom in 1960, when he said—

The Minister may see some distinction between “allesomvattende” and “integrated”, or he may think that “all-embracing” means “separate and distinct”, but if so the hon. the Minister is the only person who believes in that. This is the Minister who said a few years ago: “Give me two years, and I will change the face of South Africa.” Sir, the two years have passed and everything is as it was before, only more so. There are today many more Bantu in the so-called White areas than there were before apartheid was ever heard of. On our farms, in our industries, in our commercial undertakings, the number of non-Whites employed has increased rapidly and far more proportionately than the Whites. In brief, the crucial problem to-day is to find an area in South Africa which is predominantly White. I do not want to bore the House by reciting too many figures, but I have a list of the major towns in South Africa and I want to quote some of the details in connection with the populations of those major towns.

In Johannesburg, e.g., we find these figures. I give them in thousands and they were computed in 1960 by the Bureau of Census and Statistics. In Johannesburg there are 389.7 Whites and there are 622.8 Natives. In Cape Town there are 278.6 Whites and 365.5 non-Whites. In Durban there are 194.3 Whites and 204.1 Africans. In a smaller place like Kimberley, which can still be thought of in terms of a rural town, they are 24.0, in thousands again, White people, and 35.8 Africans. So you can go through the entire list and I wonder whether there is any area in South Africa where the Whites are in a numerically superior position, despite the fact that we have had apartheid in South Africa now for 12 long years.

What does that prove?

This is the sad story of 12 years of apartheid rule. This the result of 12 years during which one discriminatory Act after another was put on the Statute Book and one right after the other belonging to the non-Whites has been removed. Small wonder that it ended up by the Government being forced to declare a state of emergency.

We therefore reject totally apartheid as a basis of policy on which a higher standard of living for all can be obtained. Sir, a change of policy is urgently needed and in the words of the Economist, the Chambers of Industry and the Chambers of Commerce and trade unions they are all at one that a change of policy is needed. If this is to be a lasting success in years to come we must encourage and allow all the people of South Africa to make the maximum contribution to our economy which they are capable of doing. By no other means can an expanding economy be achieved and a rising standard of living for all races be assured. This statement was issued by the Associated Chambers of Commerce on 25 June last. This is a simple statement of economic facts and it is accepted as axiomatic in any modern economy. It is a sorry commentary on the South African situation that so basic a fact has to be stated and re-stated repeatedly. What is the position in South Africa to-day? Far from encouraging the citizens to make their maximum contribution to the economy and the progress of the country, the majority of them are by law and convention actually prohibited from doing so. I want to direct, with great respect, the attention of the House to some of the measures militating against the non-White in South Africa and making it impossible for him to render his maximum contribution to the welfare of the country.

The first one I want to mention is the operation of the pass laws and influx control. At the lowest rung of the economic ladder we have the position that the vast majority of the people of this country are prevented from raising themselves above the bare subsistence level by the operation of the pass laws and influx control, measures which prevent them from selling their labour in the best market and from acquiring the skills which can be obtained only by a steady and stable employment. The African, because he comes into the towns in search of work, cannot make a living in the reserves and it will be many years before the reserves can carry even their present population. This African is simply chased back to the reserves where there is no employment for him and where he faces starvation. The result is that thousands of Africans are denied all opportunity of engaging in gainful employment and spend their lives drifting about the country and crowding into border towns where there is no work for them.

In Queenstown, e.g., the urban population, according to the Town Clerk, has increased from 15,000 to 25,000 in ten years as the result of the tightening up of influex control elsewhere. The locations are over-crowded and employment is becoming scarce and unrest is developing. In these words the Mayor of Queenstown described the position as an explosive situation. It is in view of these facts that we of the Progressive Party insist on the speedy and affective development of the reserves, on the one hand, and on the other hand the abolition of the pass laws and influx control, coupled with positive measures to ensure the orderly flow of labour and the stability of the African population, both urban and rural. This is no revolutionary demand. The same demand has come from both workers and employers. For example, the South African Trades Union Council, the most powerful workers’ voice in the country to-day, included this recommendation in the eight-point plan they put before the Prime Minister last year—

Unrestricted access to the urban areas may create temporary difficulties for the workers already living there, but considerations of this, kind cannot influence us unless we are prepared to reconcile ourselves to living in a static society. These were the words not only of the Progressive Party but of the workers and employers of South Africa.

Now I want to draw the attention of the House to the wages operating in respect of the non-Whites in South Africa and the opportunities that are given to them—more, the opportunities denied to them—to develop their potentialities to the maximum. These Africans who despite the provisions of Section 10 of the Urban Areas Act and influx control are fortunate enough to obtain employment are so hampered by further restrictions that they are debarred from acquiring the skills which would enable them to perform more productive work at higher wages. They are excluded from the definition of employees under the Industrial Conciliation Act. They are prevented from forming or joining trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining for improved wages or conditions. Meanwhile the determinations of the Wage Board are so protracted and cumbersome that on the average as much as 17 years elapse between determinations of minimum wages for skilled and unskilled labour, years during which the cost of maintaining life rises ever higher. Small wonder that the majority of the African workers in the urban areas live below the breadline. Here, too, there is a growing and ever more insistent demand from all sectors of the economy that this position must be remedied. The South African Congress of Trade Unions has demanded that Africans be given access to trade unions. The President of the Natal Chamber of Industries stated on 20 October 1960—

The President of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce stated on 24 January 1961—

These warnings have often been given to the hon. the Prime Minister, but the Government turns a deaf ear and keeps its eyes fixed on its own party-political short-term advantage, whatever the cost to the economy and the welfare of South Africa might be. The Government has been warned over and over again that the poverty of the non-White is the biggest single factor endangering the peace and the economy of South Africa. The Prime Minister has stated that he is not prepared to heed the warnings of organized commerce and industry. Will he pay attention to the warning issued by the Chairman of Sabra, that we cannot continue on the present basis of low wages without creating a seething discontent to an increasing degree? Or does he no longer heed anything that Sabra says?

Is that Dr. Geyer?

Yes. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration blandly dismisses this as being the moral responsibility of the employer. Other Ministers simply declare that wages cannot be increased until productivity has been increased. As far as this hon. Minister is concerned, he must be aware that some employers have already increased African wages by £20,000,000 in the past year, but he must surely be equally aware that the Chairman of the Bantu Wage and Productivity Association has nevertheless insisted that a legal minimum wage, determined on a regional basis, is essential if the present position is to be remedied as quickly as possible. As far as the productivity argument is concerned, the Prime Minister need go no further than to accept the advice of the Vice-Chairman of th Board of Trade when he said: “One of the best means of improving matters in South Africa is to raise the living standards of the masses. Higher wages will increase the productivity and the efficiency of the workmen.”

Now I want to come to the third matter to which I would like to direct the attention of the House. This is once again a matter that hampers the productivity of the non-Europeans in South Africa. I refer to the question of job reservation. When despite these restrictive policies, non-Whites have succeeded in obtaining productive and reasonably paid employment, legislation has immediately been brought in to curb them and throw them out, hence the job reservation provisions of the so-called Industrial Conciliation Act. Job reservation, like any and all interference with economic laws, has had a marked deleterious effect on our economic progress. In the words of the Associations of Chambers of Commerce it has “hamstrung the labour potential of South Africa”. According to trade union spokesmen it has “stagnated the economic development of South Africa”, caused “fear and uncertainty when initiative and optimism should have been the key words”. Sir, let me quote what was said, not by the Progressive Party, but by Mr. Rutherford, the General Secretary of the S.A. Typographical Union—

Do you agree with that?

Yes, I accept it and I agree with it, and my hon. friend too should agree with it. More recently exactly the same warning has been issued, perhaps in stronger terms, by Prof. J. A. Sadie, in an address to the Ekonomiese Instituut of the F.A.K.—

Sir, representations have also been made by the Chamber of Industries for the removal of job reservation. If the Government keeps in touch, as it claims it does, with the Department of Coloured Affairs, it must know that the Chamber and other big employer organizations have made representations to the Department for the abolition of job reservation. The recent deputation to the Secretary for Coloured Affairs pointed out that “job reservation made employers hesitant to train Coloured people for jobs which might be reserved for Whites “The Coloured people have a particular right to economic advancement in their homeland and an analysis of more than 50,000 industrial occupations showed that 30,000 were filled by Coloured workers, most of whom did semi-skilled work.” Sir, I have referred to some of these instances.

The last one that I want to refer to is lack of training facilities for the non-Whites in South Africa. Much has been said lately by the Prime Minister about a new deal for the Coloured people. He has denied them all political advancement, but, as a sop and not as of right, has promised them economic advancement. If the Prime Minister is sincere in that, let him bear in mind the effect of the job reservation policy. Let him also bear in mind that, as a result of the so-called “civilized labour policy”, and, as a result of the limited educational facilities available to Coloured children, and to the Bantu children, the number of Coloured apprentices is less than 11 to 1 of European apprentices. These figures were given by Dr. van der Ross in an article which appeared in the Cape Times on 22 October 1959. In November 1960 the Minister of Education, in opening Iscor’s new apprenticeship training centre, said—

Sir, we challenge the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to put those words into practice. With that statement we of the Progressive Party fully agree. We hope that the Minister meant what he is reported to have said. We will support fully, in fact, we demand, that every South African child, White, Coloured, Asian and African, shall be given the educational opportunities to fit itself to render its maximum contribution to the progress and prosperity of this country. Sir, I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: On what basis can we deny this to any human being? And I expect him to answer.

I want to refer briefly now to some of the effects of the apartheid policy on the economy of South Africa. At a time when other civilized countries are forging ahead, when their economies are expanding, their national income growing, when their people have never enjoyed a higher standard of living, the Union’s national income has, in the words of the chairman of Sasol, “come almost to a standstill That was said in an address to the Ekonomiese Instituut of the F.A.K. Secondly, investment capital is flowing out of the country at a rate of R4 000,000 to R6,000,000 a month. At the same time we are being warned over and over again that we will find it increasingly difficult to obtain investment capital from overseas. The last one that I want to refer to, to show this House the bad economic effects that we have to suffer by virtue of the fact that the hon. the Minister and his Government believe in a policy that they can never translate into reality, is the question of boycotts of South African goods. Sir, it is not an easy thing for any South African to talk about boycotts of South African goods, but, according to a leading article in S.A. Trade and Industry in December 1960—

Sir, I could go on quoting ad nauseam, but it is not necessary, because I know that, as long as the Government believes in the apartheid policy, this cannot be rectified.

Did you not listen to what the Minister of Finance said the other day?

I will deal with that. Sir, the other day the Minister of Finance gave some figures in respect of our national income. He gave us various figures, and he compared our position with that of other countries of comparable size and development. He compared the standard of living of our non-Europeans in South Africa with that of Africans higher up in Africa. Sir, there is nobody in South Africa who will not feel a measure of pride in the fact that we have a national income in South Africa that can compare favourably with that of other countries, that in 300 years we Whites in South Africa have improved the lot of the non-Europeans in South Africa to a greater extent than has been possible higher up in Africa. But, Sir, it would have been curious and strange if that had not been the case, because the non-European in South Africa has been in contact with Western civilization for over 300 years, whereas those people higher up in Africa have not had that opportunity. It would have been strange, too, if our national income in South Africa had not been comparable with that of other countries, because this is the most highly developed industrial country on the African continent.

What about Basutoland?

I want to put it to the Minister whether it is not true that the fruits of our national income accrue to only 15 per cent to 20 per cent of our population? I want to put it to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development whether it is not a fact —he cannot deny it—that 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the non-European labourers in South Africa are living below the bread-line. I want to put it to all my farmer friends opposite whether it is not a fact that if we were called upon to increase the wages of our non-White workers, we would go bankrupt by virtue of the fact that their production is so low. Is it not a fact that year in and year out we have pleaded for educational facilities to be given to the non-Europeans so that higher wages will be accompanied also by higher production? And, Sir, when we say that we are accused of being “kaffer boeties”. During the Session we have had three motions before this House dealing with the difficulties of the farmers in South Africa. We have discussed not only the economic difficulties of the farmers but we have discussed the problem of surpluses; we have discussed the farmers’ labour problems, and it was even suggested by one of my hon. friends opposite that a limit should be put on the production of the farmers because of the artificial surpluses that we have in South Africa.

Nobody on this side made any such suggestion; you are dreaming.

It was suggested—and we will not oppose it—that subsidies should be given to the farmers to make it possible for them to meet their commitments, but I want to submit that it is no use prescribing aspirins for the headache of the farmer and of the industrialist; what is needed is a diagnosis of the cause of the headache. The fact of the matter is that instead of developing our potential market in South Africa, embracing our entire population of 15,000,000, every step taken by the Nationalist Party, by virtue of its apartheid policy, is designed to keep the non-European’s purchasing power down as much as possible.

You are talking nonsense.

My hon. friend will have an opportunity to participate in this debate. Sir, that is why we of the Progressive Party reject discrimination on the basis of colour. We reject it and we will keep on rejecting it. We believe that what should count is the man’s merit.

Buy your votes.

Let the hon. member stop thinking for a moment about votes, and think of the future of his country. Sir, there is abundant proof that unless we reject the outmoded policies of the Nationalist Party, this country in the building up of which we all had a part to play—Whites and non-Whites alike—will be destroyed.

I second. Anyone who is interested in the political life is conscious of two great difficulties that face us—the question of choosing between a policy where the good of the country conflicts with the pressures and desires of a particular minority, and secondly the difficulty of choosing between a short-term policy and a long-term policy. It is perhaps characteristic of this House that when we have an interesting debate on the difficulties of aligning a short-term policy in agriculture with the long-term question of conserving our resources, a most important subject for this country, we have a comparatively full House, but when we devote ourselves, as this motion does, to the same problem relating to our human resources, that is to say not only the maximum use but the maximum preservation of those resources for the future, then this House tends to be not quite so full. Because this is the purpose of this motion. I am approaching it not from the angle of sentiment, not from the angle of a do-gooder, but from the angle of sheer hard economics, and the central core of my thesis will be this—and I hope here the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) will pay a little attention, because I am going to deal with the speech made by his Minister yesterday—that in the 20th century total national income depends not only on the factors of production and so on, which are so much discussed in this House, but it also depends on the way that income is shared. I repeat the absolute total of that income ultimately will depend on the way it is shared. You see, the thesis in the Victorian era—and, if I may say so, the Government accused the gentlemen on my right side the other day of being Victorian in politics, but the Government is entirely Victorian in its economic approach—the thesis in the Victorian era was that it mattered not how your classes were stratified, it mattered not that perhaps the privileged class got a greater share; the thesis was that so long as science and production went ahead at the different levels you would lift the whole lot up, and ultimately that would solve the problem of poverty at the bottom. That thesis was smashed to bits in 1914, and since then all civilized nations have adopted quite a different approach to this problem—not that that thesis was entirely untrue, but it was inadequate to the type of technological society that had come into being in the 20th century. Here in South Africa we admit at once that it is a great problem. I am not belittling the magnitude of this problem. We are trying to push ahead with a technological society that can compete with other technological societies but at the same time we are not facing the consequences of the internal economic structure and the economic relationships, not so much between races but between classes, which are necessary to the successful functioning of such a society. And that is very important. I am not speaking here of the rights of people or the needs of people. I am speaking of the needs of the national income and the demands of the technological society that we have all agreed to erect, the Nationalists in common with us. Before I develop that thesis more fully, I want to say something in extension of what the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) has said in regard to the policy of apartheid, and I want to examine not so much the theory or vision, as he put it—although he did not see much vision in the policy of apartheid—I want to examine apartheid as enunciated by the spokesmen of the Nationalist Party in contrast with apartheid in practice, because here I think the failure is most conspicuous. In other words, despite the protests and despite the granite walls apartheid in the last resort has to bow to the facts. Let me give one or two examples. Following recent incidents in this country, naturally the reaction on that side, like the reaction here, has been one of greater urgency to bring about better human relationships, and the reaction on that side has been “now we see the urgency of the situation; we must intensify the apartheid pattern, particularly in its positive aspect”. One of the announcements that has been made since then, apparently as a contribution to this, has been the border industry development plan. I examine this as one of the contributions made. It is quite clear, as the Government’s definition of what this means becomes clearer, that it has nothing to do with apartheid at all. In so far as there is any merit in it, it is a decentralization scheme. In so far as it is an apartheid measure it makes no contribution whatsoever. Let me indicate what I mean by that. What will such a scheme do if it complies with the conditions laid down by economic spokesmen in the country that it shall not result in a dual economy, that it shall not cause a disruption of existing industry, that it shall not be situated inside the reserve but on the borders. Its positive contribution amounts to this that it is an economic device which results from the tremendous costs in the large urban centres of having a population which has to live a long distance from its work, dissociated in many cases from its family life, with the social evils which flow from that; and where you have to measure the cost of a Qua Mashu and the cost of transport therefrom and certain of the social evils that flow from dissociating people from a proper family existence, you have to measure that against siting your industry elsewhere, where the individual will be closer to his home, so that you modify to a slight degree the evils of the migratory system, and where you will not impose on industry the cost, direct or indirect, that you have to impose in the towns. By “indirect costs” I mean such things as the Native Services Levy which after all is a concealed subsidy to inadequate wages, or a subsidy to transport, which again is a concealed subsidy to inadequate wages. On that basis, on measuring the economic advantages of decentralization against centralization within the fabric that the Nationalist Government imposes, and provided the Economic Advisory Council reports that this can be done without undue disruption, I think industrialists will respond to the new proposal, but it won’t have anything to do with apartheid. It has merely moved the partnership between Black and White in industry from a big concentration to a scattered concentration. That is all. That is where apartheid has to bow to the facts or where an alleged apartheid has to appear in its true colours. Let me take another instance of the same thing. We on these benches advocate private ownership of property for all races in all areas. Now, in respect of so-called African locations in towns, the Government says “Oh no, those people are only here temporarily; there is nothing permanent about it and they can come and go whenever we like, but we will give them 30 years’ leaseholds”. The defence of this 30 years’ leasehold position is that if you gave those people private ownership, their families would settle there, the population would grow at too rapid a rate, and then you would have the problem of finding employment for the children as well as the fathers, and you could not control (the Government thinks) the ultimate size of that population. I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Deputy Minister of Labour who approach these problems objectively: Are less children likely to be born to a family having 30 years’ leasehold than a family having private ownership? I go further and say: Are less children likely to be born illegitimately in Cato Manor under a system of 30 years’ leasehold than under a system of private ownership? I think the answer is sufficiently obvious if you happen to go into Cato Manor and see the number of illegitimate children who are born there. So the alleged solution, the fiction, put over by apartheid, that this is merely a temporary dwelling is exposed for what it is, and it is bought at the price of increasing insecurity for the whole population, at the price of economic and social insecurity. And, Sir, the Afrikaner should know what I mean when I talk about economic and social insecurity and I say this without introducing any racial note into the debate. We saw not long ago in the history of South Africa the creation of an insecure group, particularly of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the towns—the man who came in in the ’twenties at a time when it was clear that the division of the land in the platteland would not hold that population and these people were displaced. They came into the towns and they have become a fine body of artisans and white-collar workers and other contributors to our economic life, but to-day there is still a recollection in their minds of that feeling of insecurity. In fact that is one of the reasons why they are a strong voting power behind the Nationalist Party. It is because of that insecurity that they are particularly the people who demand “blanke beskerming”. It is not an unnatural thing. But what I am putting to the Government is this: If you imagine the insecurity of those people and the sort of result it had on their psychology, cannot you imagine the greater effect on lessprivileged people, on their psychology, of the eternal insecurity in which they live? Number three of the arguments that we have to listen to with regard to the realities of apartheid is this, that influx control on its positive side is put there to defend the position of the Bantu who has become reasonably settled in the towns; in other words, to increase his security and to protect him against competition. Sir, you protect him and make him secure by passing a law which says “lose that job and you are out”. What kind of security is that? How would those migrant Afrikaners of the period I am speaking of have felt if they had been confronted with that type of security? I am concerned with the impact of this on the psychology of these people and how you can adjust them more successfully to the differentiated society to which they are not used and to which they have succumbed in our towns; because if you do not succeed in doing that, the whole edifice will crumble for other than economic reasons. It is the thesis of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that there is no Bantu family in the towns that ultimately is not really based in the reserves. Am I right? The more he develops that thesis the more is he writing the doom of the tribal system. Because if every man in that differentiated society (with roughly 3,000,000 Africans now in the towns, 3,000,000 in the White agricultural areas, and 3,000,000 in the reserves) has some family connection, then back to the reserves will they take the ideas of a differentiated society and against those ideas the primitive tribal society of the reserves cannot live. Therefore if the Minister is right in his thesis that these men are still (I deny it, because many have departed so far from the way of living in the reserves; although they have some family connection there—in reality they are completely divorced from that way of life), but if the Minister is right, then he himself is trying to uphold a system which our society, that is our economic society, is busily setting out to destroy. Under those circumstances it will be scarcely asked whether through agitators or otherwise we must expect increasing trouble in the reserves.

Take another aspect of the “apartheids-beleid”, the job reservation. Writing that into the Statute Book, I think, was a terrible thing, and I will oppose any Bill of that nature, and I think anybody on this side of the House will. But in practice this also has to bow to the facts, and as I said, when the Industrial Conciliation Bill was before us, in so far as this Bill operates seriously, its ultimate effect will be to wreck our economic society. Therefore, it will not be applied to that extent, and up to the present stage, fortunately, it has not been applied to a great extent. Therefore it appears for what it is, yet another piece of the façade with which the Nationalist Party deludes the people at the price of the insecurity of a large section of the community.

Now I want to come to the thesis that I said I would develop about the national income. The hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) made the point, and I think it is an unanswerable point, that we sit in this House and discuss surpluses and we discuss problems of export, as though the only problem of South Africa were the problem of over-production. It is much truer to say that the basic problem of South Africa is under-consumption. Why is it that our economy, apart from being cushioned by gold, a pivot on which it still turns very largely, responds, as we all know it responds, so readily to what the various Ministers call “a shot in the arm It is because of this huge unsaturated demand (which is another word for “poverty”), this huge unsaturated demand which is not given a chance for a go at the goods for which it is hunting. And that position will continue for a long time. From a certain angle it puts us in a very fortunate position. The hon. member for Queenstown has mentioned a population of 15,000,000. I am speaking very roughly now, but I think the figures I am quoting now will do for the sake of my argument: I think the wages of the Indian and Coloured community in our country are about two-sevenths of those of the White population, although these things do not happen directly according to race but on the basis of skilled and unskilled work. The Coloureds and Indians have a wage level which is about two-sevenths of that of the Europeans and the Bantu wage level is about one-seventh of that of the Europeans. So we put those groups together and take it that the non-European wage, for the sake of argument, is on-sixth that of the European. So the total purchasing power of our 15,000,000 is 3,000,000 Whites plus one-sixth of the balance in its White equivalent, in other words a purchasing power of about 5,000,000 Whites. I cannot say too strongly, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot gear the technological machine which is going somehow to provide employment and subsistence for 15,000,000 people at whatever level, to sell only to a market of the extent of 5,000,000. I am not talking now on the basis of what ought to be done morally. I do not set my conscience above that of other men although there is much to be said, as the hon. member for Queenstown has pointed out, without being very moral, against Government policy. I am trying to argue on a practical basis. If we wish to expand our industries as they should expand, if we wish to feed the coming generations of South Africa, we have got to make a drastic alteration in our economic policies, because the converse side of what I am saying here, the positive side, is that if you increase the purchasing power —I do not mean overnight, but steadily— where the demand is unsaturated, there will be a terrific boost to your economy. But I want to utter a warning to the other side. If you do not face the fact that you must increase productivity by increasing opportunities for your labour, surely your economy will ultimately be strangled. That is the danger before us, irrespective of whether foreign capital is readily available or not. You cannot in a modern economy gear the power economy—and in this field we have done tremendous things; the amount of power we have behind each worker is another thing that comparesvery favourably with developments in other parts of the world. We have seen the non-European, for example, become habituated to the use of power tools in every walk of life; the farmers will say to me that when they handle our tractors, there is much to be desired in their conscience with regard to machinery and their handling of it. But nonetheless they do handle the tractors, and they handle the jack-hammers down the gold mines and they handle machines, and valuable machines, in the factories. I regard this as a key question in the economic sphere, much more important than the figures given by the Minister of Finance, quite important as they are, for what they are worth …

Not very much.

Not very much. It gives a general picture of how our national income compares with the national income in the world, but it gives no comparison with the degree of development and in regard to the relation between skilled and unskilled workers. If I am asked for the key figure for the future success of our economy and future peace in our country, I would say it is the figure that indicates whether the gap between the real wages of the lower-income groups and the real wages of the higher-income groups is closing or opening. More than 35 years ago the Wages and Economic Commission reported that the most vital thing to do in this country was to close that gap, and it is not at all clear to me to-day as to whether that gap is closing or whether it is not actually widening slightly. We make calculations on average figures. For example, we have useful cost-ofliving figures. We apply this to all sections of the population. When we are calculating the increase in income, we say: allowing for the increase in population, allowing for the cost-of-living figure, this figure compares so-and-so with so-and-so. A gentleman—quite a careful thinker—Mr. Spooner, has written a book “South African Predicament”, and he makes a very good point, the point that the fluctuation in the cost-of-living index of different groups is quite considerably different, and the average figure will not do. Over the period he examined, it was from 1938 to 1952, he gives a round figure of 152, and for the African, based on the actual things that he consumes, he gives a figure of 182. Now I cannot substantiate that figure, but I think it would we well worth while the Government investigating this point because, on the figures he gives, he gives a drop in real wages when comparing the one group with the other, over that period, a period of almost unparalleled expansion in this country. Over that period, 1938 to 1952, there were restrictions on labour, there were pass laws, but for the most part, under the pressure of circumstances, they largely went by the board. That was one of the complaints of this Government when they got into power that proper control had not been exercised because there was a war on and so on. What I want to ask the Government is this: Do they suppose that same expansion in that period would have taken place if we had job reservation and the tightening up of the laws which we now have? Will we be able to seize our opportunity when it offers again? I am not defending the slums that grew up …

Under the United Party.

I am trying to talk about South Africa and to get away from political considerations. If that same opportunity comes again, the straitjacket in which the Nationalists are placing the labour force, and indeed the employers of the country who have to bow to these rules, would prevent such expansion, unless the economic forces would smash those restrictions, as I think they will. But otherwise these restrictions would prevent that type of expansion.

What about the expansion during the last five years?

Yes, we get 2 or 3 per cent expansion a year, and sometimes it correlates with a 3 per cent or 4 per cent rise in the cost of living. But the question I want to ask that hon. member is: On these basic figures, if there is anything in my thesis, can he prove that real wages of the lower-income groups have risen relative to the real wages of the higher-income groups? That is a very important question. It is not just a question of stability. The hon. Minister gave figures of comparison between us and the United States. Does the hon. Minister know the relation between skilled and unskilled wages in the United States? The skilled wages are only about 25 per cent ahead of unskilled wages. But here in South Africa the relation is 6:1 or 7:1. That simply means that they have a higher developed economy. But if we wish to become a more highly developed economy— this has nothing to do with the national income for the moment—then we have to follow the same pattern. Or you must abandon Western technology. It is one of the two. But the whole direction of the Nationalist Party is pride in the extent to which South Africa adopts Western technology.

But you are running away from it.

If the hon. member would go back and do a little mass production of sheep, that is his line. I am concerned with the consequences of mass production as applied to industrial economy.

Order! I want to ask hon. members to give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I am not worried, except that it tends to distract me from my line of reasoning. This motion has been brought in the same spirit that these motions have been brought about maintaining the fertility of our soil—this motion has been introduced in the interest of maintain what we are rich in in South Africa, irrespective of colour, and that is human resources. I can put very simply the point against apartheid in this context. Domination can be only achieved with the aid of the Black man. That is the whole case against apartheid. So unless you have his willing consent, your domination is not going to last very long.

My Natives are very satisfied.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I need bother too much about an interjection that I think is not intended very seriously by the hon. member. He is hoping perhaps that I might put my spectacles on and take them off again. The basic problem before South Africa is this, if we wish to survive economically (those words were put deliberately in the motion), do we select the temporary gains we have been making from year to year? I am not speaking now of a desire to gain recognition for apartheid outside. If we wish to survive in an economy where we are going to expand the labour force as we expand our industries, then we must remember that even under the wildest expectations we are not going to increase the percentage of the White population very much, we may even decrease it under the policy of the present Government. And if we are going to do that, then we cannot keep the labour force, other than the White, at a dead level. It must have incentive to rise if you desire to increase production. In the past few years, in the past 20 years, a great change has taken place. The colour bar, if it has not been abandoned, has very considerably been blurred at the edge, particularly in the machine-minding class. Even in the mines to-day, where you have the Mines and Works Act, not only has the non-European graduated to do jobs that he did not do before, but even the people who fought in 1922 at the price of blood for protection against the non-European have completely altered their ideas, and it is clear to those same workmen that ultimately your mines can’t run unless you adopt a slightly different attitude to your labour. I don’t think you will get the same difficulties as you had in the past about adjusting ideas in that field.

In all this we are held back by fears, some of them rational fears, some of them irrational fears. The hon. member for Queenstown has made by implication the case that we cannot do what we are doing and successfully boast that there is a great moral basis to our policy. You may think it is a survival basis. I make the case that there can be no survival at all other than mere subsistence survival that would ultimately lead to a revival of poor-Whiteism, if we do not alter our ideas in this regard. The purely defensive strategy—and you must always have an element of that in any government, in any circumstances—employed to the exclusion of everything else, particularly when ultimately it is not the defence of Western civilization so much as a defence of a power and privilege position—that type of purely defensive strategy has always destroyed very rapidly the people who made their sole objective that. In the world of the 20th century, whether the battle is here, or between the West and Russia, it is not a question merely of survival. The question that anyone has to answer who wants positively to win, is: Survival for what? And if you cannot put a value there—this is where the moral aspect of the situation comes in—if you cannot put a moral value there, ultimately historical forces will grind you to bits. I purposely have not spoken so much on those lines. I have tried to look at this practically, and I have tried to see where a man looks at things, perhaps not as deeply as some from an economic angle, where that kind of thought leads you. Whether you approach this problem from the human angle or economic angle, or the angle we are all supposed to stand for, the Christian angle, you come to the same end in the long run, and I should like to read just a few words from the book I have referred to, because they sum up something of what has been said here. The author has drawn rather gloomy conclusions …

Whose book is that?

Spooner’s “South African Predicament”.

Who is he?

He has been an economic adviser to the Government, if that is of any interest to the hon. member. He draws some gloomy conclusions from the facts that he has been putting before us, and this is what he says—

I agree, because I agree with the hon. member for Queenstown that the White man has in the past made a great contribution, but you do not make a great contribution and rest on your laurels. You have either to go on making a positive contribution or give up—

I ask the Nationalist Government to listen to this—

and I commend this to every hon. member on the Government side—

I ask any member on the Government side to get up and underline the generosity that is inherent in the system of apartheid.

In commencing my speech this morning I feel obliged to state something which is of primary importance in discussing this motion, namely that I and hon. members on this side of the House and the people reject and deny that apartheid has failed. That is the basic premise of the motion of the hon. member for Oueenstown as seconded by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave). I am convinced that these two hon. members have shocked by far the greatest proportion of the people of South Africa to-day by the allegations they have made and by their basic premise that apartheid has failed in South Africa. This is also evidence of an ungrateful attitude on their part, coming from people who like to call themselves liberal thinkers. Because if they were to analyse the true facts, as I shall try to do very briefly in a more positive way than they have done. hon. members would see that we in South Africa owe a tremendous debt and perhaps everything to this very apartheid.

As a result of apartheid and as a result of other things as well, but mainly as a result of apartheid, we in South Africa already find that in this incomparable country with its multiplicity of standards of civilization and of races we have reached so advanced a stage of development that we have earned the admiration of the world. I concede readily that the natural wealth of our country has played a very important role, but in addition to all this, and perhaps above all else, the application of this very policy of apartheid, of separation, has resulted in our achieving the great measure of success which we have achieved. During his speech the hon. member for Queenstown has also referred to what the enterprise of the White man has already achieved in South Africa. But if he realizes that. I am astonished that he does not perceive that the implementation of the policies of the United Party and the Progressive Party (they only differ in degree) would destroy those very achievements. No, apartheid has definitely not failed in South Africa. Apartheid is one of the important keys to the success we have already achieved. I should like to make one or two remarks with reference to what the two hon. members have said, although I regret that I cannot do so in detail. I deplore the fact that in their speeches they have adopted a completely negative attitude. For a young party which has achieved representation in Parliament in such a fortunate way …

Blaar Coetzee.

No, he is here on his own merits. For a party which has achieved representation in this House by such an easy method, one would have expected them to have used the many opportunities they have here to submit a positive synthesis of their policy, to show the people of South Africa what positive policy they can offer, which can be implemented if they should be given an opportunity to carry out their policy in South Africa.

In all her history South Africa has never had such a striking example of how such a synthesis can take hold of the people as happened when the National Party while still in opposition went to the people with such a positive synthesis. It brought about the downfall of the powerful United Party to which the members of the Progressive Party also belonged at that time. This was because the National Party offered a policy and did not merely adopt a negative and destructive attitude. The Progressive Party are wasting their opportunities by their own actions — they discuss negative aspects and they discuss our philosophy at 11 o’clock in the morning, something which belongs to a university and not in this House.

In discussing their speeches, I want to commence with the pointless use which the hon. member for Queenstown has made of statements by previous Prime Ministers, namely Dr. Malan and Mr. Strijdom. I do not want to devote much time to these remarks, but I want to read something which the late Mr. Strijdom said in discussing this subject while he was Prime Minister. This will partly answer the remarks of the hon, member. But I want to say in advance that it is quite clear to us that the hon. member for Queenstown is confused in his own mind about various concepts relatting to apartheid, and I think he is confusing total territorial apartheid with apartheid as we apply it, which is gradually taking the process of separation further. He is confusing those concepts.

What is the difference between separation and total apartheid?

I just want to read briefly the words of the late Mr. Strijdom. He made this statement on 14 May 1956 in reply to an interjection by the hon. member for Germiston (District). He was asked what this policy meant, and Mr. Strijdom said—

That is a brief quotation and I hope hon. members will learn it by heart.

For the umpteenth time I now want to refer to the misrepresentations which are continuously being made, and which have now once again been made, regarding what the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said some 12 to 18 months ago. The hon. member for Queenstown has also misrepresented this matter yet again, despite the fact that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration put the record right for the umpteenth time a few days ago. The Minister said that if the English Press would leave him in peace, he would achieve a miracle with apartheid within the space of two years. Sir, I go so far as to say that he could just as well have said less than two years, subject to that condition, and he would have succeeded. But hon. members opposite are claiming that the hon. the Minister said that even if all the forces of evil were launched against him. he still saw his way clear to achieving his object within two years. We must not make such misrepresentations; we must interpret one another correctly in this House.

There are other points to which I could reply, but I prefer to let this suffice. I just want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams)—a good old friend of mine— that he made the remarks that “apartheid must bow to facts”. Mr. Speaker, I shall develop this theme a little further in a moment by the remarks I am about to make. Allow me just to tell the hon. member this in advance. The hon. member with his philosophic background should reconsider this matter a little and then he will see that apartheid is one of the most fundamental facts of our existence, that it is one of the basic reasons why we are here and why we have reached the position we have to-day. And when I say “we” then I do not only mean the Whites; I am referring to all the racial groups in South Africa. The hon. member must realize that our people—or the majority of them—have already accepted apartheid over the centuries, and the sooner he too learns to accept it, the sooner he will help to make a success of our development.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following amendment to the motion by the hon. member for Queenstown—

1. (a) the policy of apartheid for the White and non-White national groups in South Africa is the only and the correct policy for the happiness and self-preservation of the said national groups;
2. (b) the Government has already achieved unequalled success in its manner of giving practical effect to the aforementioned policy; and
3. (c) the Government in its further application of this policy to the various spheres of life of the said national groups best serves the economic, social, spiritual and civic needs of each national group and the interests of South Africa as a whole.”.

I have told the hon. member for Musgrave that apartheid has gradually developed over the centuries as a way of life in South Africa. Inherent in our policy of apartheid is this concept of the development of each group along its own lines, along parallel lines, with the equal opportunities which those groups will enjoy and to which they will give expression in their own spheres. This is nothing less than the recognition and acceptance of one’s essential self, of what one is and the development of oneself. Because one makes these demands for oneself, it follows that one must grant similar rights to the other different population groups. This national policy, if I may so describe it, has developed over the years, I can almost say over the centuries of our history, along such lines that it has brought us to the stage we have already reached. It is the position that human communities are becoming ever more organized, and all governments in South Africa have taken various steps to give legislative expression to this national policy which has developed spontaneously, i.e. apartheid. In applying the policy of apartheid, the Government since coming into power has been trying and has also to a large extent succeeded in introducing proper order into this way of life which originated so spontaneously. Our Government undoubtedly deserves all thanks and praise for the fact that it has thought out this ordering more fully and more logically, and that it has put it into operation more effectively than previous Governments due to circumstances were able to do. Our present Prime Minister particularly deserves the praise of all the population and colour groups in South Africa for the role which he has played as the main instrument and driving force in recent years, particularly when he was Minister of Native Affairs, in laying the foundations and building still further on those foundations so that this edifice of ours could be brought nearer completion. For such actions we should receive recognition from the Progressive Party and the United Party, but instead of that we merely have this self-deceiving aloofness which they have revealed to-day and they merely describe the policy which the people have clearly accepted and repeatedly supported at elections as a failure over the years. Let us differ over how this policy of apartheid should be applied —that point I concede to hon. members—but, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental policy of apartheid as a way of life in South Africa has been accepted by the people, as I have already said. It is kicking against the pricks to try to oppose it. Our policy of apartheid is being implemented in all the important spheres of life and in all the realities of life; I am referring to the physical presence of, the employment of and the exercising of control by the people concerned in all the various parts of our country wherever they may be living. The results we have achieved, to which I shall return so that I can give concrete examples, have also proved to us over the years in the light of observable realities that in all these spheres apartheid has been a success, that it is achieving still greater success daily and is progressing still further.

Give us examples.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House of the basic precept which applies in this regard, namely that those rights which we demand for ourselves in our own areas, we must also concede to the other population groups in their areas. Here in our own areas we grant him certain rights and we may receive similar concessions in their areas. A parallelism is evident in every measure we have taken. There is planning. But, as I said at the outset, the policies of hon. members opposite do not give evidence of any planning; we do not find any synthesis in them. We find an opportunistic playing on words and on the events of our times.

In its motion, the Progressive Party refers to economic survival. Fundamental to us as Whites, and also to the non-Whites, without any proviso, is not a qualified survival, but an unqualified survival. They must not speak of economic survival; they must speak of survival in all spheres. And this is not guaranteed by the policy of the Progressive Party or by that of the United Party. This is only guaranteed by the policy of apartheid as implemented by us.

I do not want to enlarge unduly on the position in the labour and economic spheres, because there are other hon. members on this side who will do so. Hon. members opposite will not take it amiss if we apply job reservation to this debate as well. I think they will regard it as being typical of us. I just want to discuss one or two matters briefly so as to maintain continuity.

I want to remind the House that the development of the Bantu areas is of the utmost importance, that is to say, their development by the Bantu within those areas and by the Whites on the borders of those areas; I want to remind the House that as far as possible this development must be undertaken for the sake of all concerned by the Whites outside those areas and the Bantu within those areas. During his speech a little while ago, one hon. member made a passing reference to our policy of border industries. I looked forward eagerly to hearing hon. members discuss this matter, but they left it at that and they dropped it. There is therefore nothing to which I need reply in that respect. Phenomenal progress has been made in developing our Bantu areas in recent years. Hon. members opposite now say that they also welcome the fact that the Bantu areas are being developed. But we receive very little recognition or appreciation for what we have done. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration recently discussed these matters fully and I do not want to discuss them in detail to-day. I just want to remind the House of one or two things. In recent years an average of £5,000,000 or R10,000,000 per annum has been spent on the development of those areas alone. Just think of it, Mr. Speaker, as far as reclamation is concerned, more than 4,000,000 morgen have already been taken in hand in recent years and improved. Think of all the agricultural undertakings, of the irrigation schemes, the planting of fibre, etc., which have been started. Think of the laying out of towns with which a start has been made and which we are going to take still further. Think of all the other things which others, and not I, will enlarge upon.

May I ask you a question?

No, not now. I shall give the hon. member an opportunity at a later stage. There have been great opportunities for development, and not only as regards the cultivation of the soil. I refer, for example, to separate universities which have been established to serve the Natives, and in respect of which more than R3,000,000 in capital expenditure has already been incurred. And as a matter of fact, if we examine the overall position of education amongst the Bantu throughout South Africa, we find an equally impressive picture of tremendous progress. I do not want to mention the funds which have been devoted to this purpose, because as a result of our new currency we do not yet quite appreciate the amounts involved. I therefore want to remind the House of one aspect which we can easily understand. In 1954, when Bantu education was taken over in terms of our policy, there were 5,700 Bantu schools, while to-day—a few years later—there are 7,700. The increase in the number of Bantu children at school is equally impressive. There has been industrial development, commercial development, and there is the development of border industries which is about to begin—these are all things which have been started and carried out in recent years and which will be continued. Despite all this progress we hear the parrot cry that apartheid has failed.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the provision of opportunities to the Bantu to control their own affairs, we have also made great and exemplary progress in recent years. We have taken measures which in many respects are comparable and, in many respects, better than what is being done in other Bantu areas near our borders and even within our borders, and which has been praised so eloquently. What is being done in those areas is discussed in glowing terms, but what we are doing, which is the equivalent of what is being done elsewhere, is concealed and disparaged.

What has happened in Pondoland?

What has happened in the Progressive Party? In recent years tremendous development has already taken place in the various forms of government in the Bantu areas which I do not want to discuss in detail. We have already announced, and this matter is receiving consideration, that we are even reviewing the methods of consultation which have been available to the Bantu in the White urban areas through the medium of the advisory boards. The whole evolutionary process of developing apartheid so as to keep pace with the new needs and requirements of all the people in the various parts of our country is going ahead daily. But we do not receive any recognition, and we are told that this policy has failed.

The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration have referred recently to the great possibilities of development in the Bantu areas. This can be discussed at the appropriate time. I now want to refer more specifically to the position of the Bantu here in the urban areas. Here too we find that the Bantu have made tremendous progress, in the economic as well as other spheres. There are many examples which I could mention but I do not want to go too deeply into the matter. However, I want to give the House as an example certain criteria which summarize the position. I just want to mention one which hon. members opposite have used, namely that of the national income. I want to point out that in 1936 the national income per capita of the Bantu poulation alone was R20.40 per annum. By 1953 it was R56.60, an increase of approximately 10.6 per cent per annum over those 17 years. By 1958 it was calculated to be R82, an increase over the five years since 1953, of 12.8 per cent per annum. This was a more intensive and a more rapid increase than that of the preceding period. The rate of increase in the national income of the Bantu alone has accelerated. Mr. Speaker, when we compare these figures with the position of other peoples in other countries, we can see how well we come out of any comparison with other comparable countries. I want to mention one or two, particularly because the hon. member for Queenstown has also referred to the “poverty” of the Bantu. The House must remember that the most recent surveys show the national income per capita of the Bantu to be R92 per annum. In the Federation of Rhodesia the figure for the whole population, including all the various colour groups, is R94 per annum. In Egypt it is only something like R78—far below ours. Kenya is still further behind us, namely R56, while in Ceylon the figure is R82. Spain is an old country, and yet its figure is only R176, while the figure for all groups in South Africa as a whole is R250, which is far higher than the figure for Spain. Mr. Speaker, these figures speak volumes in support of what I have said, namely that the policy of apartheid has not failed and is not failing, as hon. members opposite claim, but that as the days and the years pass it is proving itself to be a great success. That is why the campaign against it is becoming ever more violent and that is why the animosity and jealousy are becoming ever more bitter. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want to give you another significant example, and this relates to expenditure on education and health. In the case of education the figure is R1.57½ per capita in South Africa. In the much-lauded Ghana it is only 61c per capita. This is much lower than in South Africa. In India it is so much lower that one cannot even calculate the figure properly. We must combine the two figures relating to education and health to reach a figure worth mentioning. While the figure in the case of education in South Africa is R1.57½, and the figure in the case of health is R2.69, the figure in the case of India for both together is only 2c per capita. Then we are told that apartheid has failed; it is said that we are oppressing the Bantu; then it is said that we are unfair and even un-Christian. Mr. Speaker, I want to give you another example, and this relates to the increase in literacy amongst the Bantu. From a recent survey by Unesco—and hon. members opposite will surely accept this—it appears that, as far as the Bantu in South Africa are concerned, the rate of literacy is far, far higher than is the case in many other comparable countries with much older civilizations, with far older histories and with far older cultures than the Bantu have. We take, for example, countries like China and India, not to mention the other Bantu States to our north on this same continent. As far as literacy amongst the Bantu is concerned, we outshine them all. It is calculated that by the end of this century the Bantu of South Africa will be 100 per cent literate and that we are already half-way towards achieving that object.

As far as the physical presence of Bantu in our White areas is concerned. I must make a number of points clear. We must remember what I said at the outset, namely that the Bantu take a secondary position in the White areas, just as the Whites take a secondary position in the Bantu areas. We must remember that notwithstanding that fact this Government has not only broken all South African records since 1948, but has also broken world records with the housing services it has provided in this country. I want to mention one or two points to hon. members to show that in this field our Government has been responsible for unprecedented achievements, achievements which completely refute the deplorable allegation that apartheid has supposedly failed.

What about Johannesburg?

Yes, I am coming to Johannesburg and all the others. Hon. members will remember clearly the very dramatic explanation the hon. the Minister gave a few days ago showing in what a critical and deplorable position Bantu housing was in the urban areas throughout our country. Think of that and then remember that from 1948 to 1960 the large amount of R106,000,000 was devoted to housing alone through the provision of funds for economic and sub-economic housing and through the use of other external loan sources and the levy funds. I am not going to give the detailed figures—one cannot remember them. But that is not all. In addition there are the loans which have been advanced to local authorities in respect of the purchase of land, which alone totalled more than R10,000,000. In addition there is the programme of the South African Railways which has constructed resettlements lines and purchased rolling stock for the conveyance of Bantu, an item which also totalled R108,000,000 during this period. We therefore have a total of no less than R225,000,000 which has been devoted to housing the Bantu in the urban areas; that is to say, it has been devoted to the provision of housing and of transport to that housing and also the rudimentary services which are required. Is this proof of the failure of apartheid? Are these facts all proof of the oppression of the Bantu in South Africa?

That is not apartheid.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can refute all these statements presently. I should like to see her proof. I should like to mention other points. During this period the urban Bantu areas of South Africa have been planned and replanned until to-day we have a total of 336. More than 133,000 single houses have been built. Squatters have been removed on a large scale from Johannesburg, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town, and all the various urban areas, and the illegal inhabitants of such squatter camps have been removed and resettled. I do not want to discuss the details again, but I shall give the House the overall figures. I give the figures for 1952-60 for the resettlement of squatters in properly approved residential areas in the case of Pretoria, the whole of the Witwatersrand and Port Elizabeth —the figure is no less than 284,000 persons, representing 59,780 families.

Very good.

That is the first time we have heard an hon. member opposite say “very good”. We should like to hear it outside as well. Just yesterday I saw figures which showed that 5,877 families were removed from Cato Manor in Durban and resettled under proper housing conditions during the period February 1960 to January 1961. This represents 26,400 souls. I hope hon. members opposite will also use the word “souls” more often when they discuss these people because they do not always realize that these people have souls, souls which must be recognized and which must remain what they were created to be. Then we have the position relating to the removal of Black spots from the districts—43,700 morgen have already been cleared up in this way. Quite recently we read about one such area in the Eastern Transvaal where the removal took place without any difficulty whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, we could quote you many more such examples. I just want to mention one further figure, namely, that relating to the Bantu who are residing illegally in the White areas, who do not have the right to be there, and who have to be removed for that reason. I do not have the figure for the whole of South Africa because it is very difficult to obtain. I shall give the House the figure for the Johannesburg-Alexandria complex—70,000 Bantu have been removed from that area where they did not have the right to be. They did not qualify to work in a White area and they were sent back to the Bantu areas. I now turn to the legislation dealing with locations in the sky, which was introduced here a few years ago. During the first three years alone of the application of that legislation nearly 40,000 illegal inhabitants of locations in the sky were removed to areas outside the White areas where they have the legal right to live.

You mean out of the White residential areas.

Yes, from the White residential areas.

Then they are still in the cities.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention one or two other matters. As far as housing is concerned, we have introduced very far-reaching and important financial and technical changes during our regime, because we have planned and investigated the position more effectively than our predecessors. I should like to mention one or two matters, and I shall do so briefly because my time is limited. In the first place I should like to refer to the Bantu Building Workers’ Act which we have passed. The hon. member for Queenstown has said there are too few Bantu labourers and workers. What did they do under their regime to enable the Bantu to qualify properly as a tradesman so that he could build himself a house? Nothing. It was this Government which had to do so, and today we already have 2,700 qualified Bantu building workers who can build homes for their own people and many of whom have already risen to become the independent type of contractor who can build to-day in the Bantu towns and reserves, as I saw recently, and which hon. members can also see if they want to go and look. I mention a second matter: The reduction of the building costs in the case of Bantu housing. We know that under the United Party’s regime houses cost from £300 to £800 each, but houses to-day are being built for no more than £185 to £200 each, depending on the type and size of the house.

The work of Mr. Archibald.

You also had Archibald. Why did you not give him the proper guidance? In this regard I should like to refer to the general improvement and revision of the financial policy relating to Bantu housing. We know that under the regime of hon. members opposite this housing was provided mainly through the medium of sub-economic schemes. By revising this policy, by building houses more cheaply, and by using their own building workers, we have succeeded in giving the Bantu houses on an economic basis, which is a very sensible financial policy seen from all points of view, including that of the country as a whole. We also introduced this change. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not get any recognition or appreciation. We have also made great progress in the laying out of Bantu residential areas. Go look at the Western townships which were built under the old regime. They cannot even be compared with the middle-class townships which have been built under our regime, not to mention the best being built to-day. Under our regime we have also introduced the Native Services Levy. The hon. member has just referred so disparagingly to that levy, but if that legislation had not been introduced, if this step had not been taken, and if money had not been made available from that source, it would have been the housing of the Bantu which would have suffered; the White employers would have suffered as a result of the conditions under which their labour was living. The productivity of our industries would have suffered, if it had been impossible to provide these people with proper housing and proper transport to and from their place of employment.

I also want to mention in passing an aspect such as the site and service schemes. I mention the Resettlement Board of Johannesburg, which we have instituted to tackle a great and difficult problem, one which the local authorities could not tackle. They have done so and have achieved outstanding success which is proved by the fact that Sophia-town to-day has been cleared of illegal Bantu. Now I am told that these steps have been failures. No, it is the Progressive Party and the United Party which failed during their regime; they are the people who are failing to-day and who have been unable to present a policy to the people which could capture their imagination. Mr. Speaker, we could give you many more such examples, but it is not necessary; I just want to say: We have given proof by our actions, of which I have only been able to mention a few examples. We know what faith we have had in the validity of the policy of separate development for each group, and because we have had faith in that policy we have tackled these matters successfully because apart from someone who has a millstone round his neck, no one goes through life under a greater handicap than one who has no faith. We have faith in our cause and we believe that we must implement this way of life, i.e. of separate development, because it is the inherent way of life both in the case of the Whites and the non-Whites. We have introduced proper order. No, these steps which we have taken represent the key to the success we have achieved, and hon. members opposite should rather learn to try to absorb and to accept something of what we have taught them or as the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) has said, to bow to the realities of our community in South Africa, namely the separate development of the various population groups. Sir, I admit that one has to be a visionary to be able to understand it, but for an Opposition which has no foresight there can be no vision. Where there is no foresight there can be no vision and that is the problem facing hon. members opposite and that is why they will remain on those benches for a long time to come.

I do not want to say much more except to point out that the establishment of the concept of apartheid by means of legislative and administrative measures such as we have taken, complies with the precept that a population group can only be what it is, and if the members of the Opposition would accept that precept, their plans might show some wisdom. One cannot fail if one is simply that which one was intended to be. That is why it is foolish to say that apartheid has failed. Hon. members have so lightly referred to apartheid as a failure, and as though it was simply a mechanical undertaking, simply an adventure such as a gymkhana or a picnic which starts to-day and then ends, and then everyone says it was a failure or a success. No, apartheid is an evolutionary process in life which is developing together with us as White and non-Whites, and apartheid has succeeded and is succeeding and will succeed in the future as well, for just one great reason alone, namely because in the steps we are taking we have given expression to the faith which the Whites have in their own future, and also that faith which the greatest majority of non-Whites have in their own future. If one gives expression to one’s faith, we will succeed, and that is why we are succeeding, and we shall succeed to the very end.

I second the amendment. The hon. the Deputy Minister very convincingly proved that the motion of the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) was based on a completely false foundation. His major premise was wrong, viz. the conclusion he arrived at that apartheid had failed. That is of course merely a chimera in the mind of the hon. member. The trouble is that hon. members are inclined to give their own interpretations of apartheid and then they try to build up a case on that. But that is not the only false proposition stated in this motion. The motion reads further that in order to maintain our economy certain steps are necessary, and those steps are then mentioned. Sir, if those steps, viz. the full implementation of integration in all spheres, were to be implemented, we would not be able to talk in South Africa of maintaining our economy. Then our economy would collapse. We have seen what has happened in other parts of Africa where the Whites lost their control, the deterioration that set in in the economic sphere, resulting in unemployment on a large scale, poverty and even famine. I say that if this motion were to be implemented with all its implications in every sphere it would be impossible to maintain our economy and it would collapse.

But this motion advocates nothing new. It is only the old policy of integration which has so often been stated here already as opposed to the policy of separate development. Reference has been made to raising the standard of living of the people. Cannot the hon. members of the Progressive Party see that this policy they propagate will lower the standard of living? This policy of integration will not bring about a land of milk and honey, as they so fondly imagine. If hon. members think that then they are living in a fool’s paradise and one day they will awaken from that dream with a nightmare. This policy of integration will not bring about peace and quiet, but it will lead to conflict and struggle, to chaos and disorder. It will not only lead to the White minority being swamped, but it will also be to the detriment of the non-Whites. It is a policy of surrender and capitulation. I say it will also lead to the non-Whites suffering harm, because in the economic sphere the non-White needs the White man to take care of his welfare and progress also. If the White man loses his control as the result of the application of this policy, it will also be a catastrophe for the non-Whites in the economic sphere, and then all the prosperity and progress we have in South Africa will come to an end.

I do not want to say much about the consequences of political integration. Much has already been said on this subject. The experience in Africa and elsewhere has taught us—the hon. member for Queenstown said that we do not want to deviate from our policy of domination—that the politically conscious Bantu in a multi-racial state is satisfied with nothing less than the franchise which will eventually lead to his domination over us. Will it be different in this country? The Progressive Party admits this. They do not try to hide it and they also foresee it, but they want to try to gain the favour of the eventual rulers by making concessions in all kinds of ways. What spinelessness, what false fantasies! Happenings elsewhere give the lie to those expectations.

It is not necessary to take much notice of the Progressive Party, because with this policy of theirs they will never be able to gain much support from the electorate. Particularly just lately they have been acting here as the spokesmen for the non-Whites, and especially for the Bantu, and to a large extent often not as the spokesmen for the moderate Bantu, but for the extremist section. We deplore some of the things which are sometimes said here. The hon. member for Queenstown perhaps did not mean it that way, but to-day he spoke about “starvation”. These things are published abroad and do South Africa much harm. Grievances are being stirred up here which do not actually exist. When we come to deal with the two policies, of integration as opposed to separate development, we cannot leave out the United Party and I want to say something about that. Their policy is also one of integration. The Progressive Party are merely a few steps ahead of them on the road, but it leads to the same goal. What is the policy of the United Party? They are also in favour of having one Parliament for all races. Their policy in the past was that the non-Whites should be represented in this Parliament by Whites, but they have now discarded that principle. They now say that the Coloureds should be represented in this House by their own people. But that is a principle which cannot and will not be applied to the Coloureds only. Eventually it will also be applied to the Bantu and the Indian. The Progressive Party and the United Party are moving increasingly closer to each other and there is not much difference between them. That also gives the lie to the proposition that they stand for White domination. This latest change in their policy shows us that the English language Press was correct when they said after the 1957 Union Congress of the United Party that a motion had been moved to the effect that non-Whites should be represented in Parliament by their own people, but that the delegates had voted against it because they were afraid of the election which was then imminent. On 18 August 1957 the Sunday Times said—

It further stated that 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the delegates voted in favour of “Africans and Coloureds sitting in the Senate”. I do not want to devote too much time to the political aspect of integration. The country realizes what the consequences will be. Those hon. members say that apartheid has failed. Sir, it was this policy which ensured that to-day we have peace and quiet in South Africa and a high degree of prosperity, and which prevented chaos ensuing. What would conditions have been if the Nationalist Party had not come into power in 1948? People forget so easily how far we had been moving along the road of integration, and what the conditions were which had to be remedied by this Government. There was the uncontrolled migration to the cities. Now the hon. member for Queenstown says their numbers have increased, but what would the numbers have been if the Government had not applied these control measures? And numbers are not the only yardstick. How are those numbers being controlled, and what are the conditions around the cities where apartheid is being applied, as compared with conditions at that time? The Whites were being ousted in one sphere after another. They invaded our transport system, and in the residential areas squatters’ camps sprang up. There was integration in different occupations and in the trade unions. The Government cleared up these conditions to a large extent as the result of the implementation of this policy which hon. members now say has failed. Things had already developed so far when we came into power that it was a tremendous task to remedy the position. It is said that nothing has been done. The hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to the housing provided by the Bantu.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I was indicating what the Government had done in terms of its policy of separate development to clear up this chaotic position. I indicated what amounts of money had been spent on decent housing for the Bantu and Coloureds and on the provision of other services like transportation. Much has been said about the development of the Bantu homelands. A great deal has already been done in that direction. The foundation has already been laid and we can take it that in future much faster progress will be made.

The motion says that a policy should be applied which will comply with the requirements of a multi-racial society. The policy of this Government aims at satisfying the needs of all sections of the community, not as one single community but as separate groups each with its own identity and needs. In terms of this policy much more can be done for the various groups. Only then can justice be done to each group. The motion asks that all colour bars should be removed. That would lead to serious racial clashes and friction. I want to remind hon. members of the fact that it was because the colour bar was ignored that we had the bloody strike in 1922. It is essential for the workers to be protected against the exploitation of the labour of people with a lower standard of living. What is the position in the sphere of labour to-day? To-day we have greater industrial peace than we ever had before. The hon. member for Queenstown said that the Bantu have no organizations through which to voice their grievances. He pleads for a Bantu trade union, which will only be used by the agitators and the communists for their own purposes and not to benefit the Bantu. I see that the hon. member whose motion is now under discussion is not here yet, but I trust that he will still arrive. This Government passed the Settlement of Disputes Act to provide machinery for the Bantu to air their grievances and to have consultation. By means of this Act 823 disputes were settled for the Bantu between 1956 and 1960. There are various works committees and liaison officers which give them the opportunity to air their grievances. It is therefore not true to say that the Bantu workers cannot voice their grievances.

I said that there was greater industrial peace to-day than ever before, and I want to prove it. In 1947 strikes resulted in loss of wages amounting to more than R3,000,000. In 1959, the last year for which we have statistics, the amount was merely R3,112. In 1959 99 Whites and 3,604 non-Whites participated in the strikes, but in 1946 there was one strike on the Rand alone in which 50,000 Bantu participated. I say we are entitled to say that there is greater industrial peace to-day than ever before as the result of the policy of this Government. It is said that the standard of living should be raised, particularly that of the non-Whites. Under this Government the standard of living of the whole population rose tremendously, but the standard of living of the non-Whites rose even higher. I can quote many figures to prove that but I do not want to bore the House with statistics. When we make comparisons with other countries we find that the standard of living in South Africa is amongst the highest in the world. The average income of the White man in South Africa is the fifth highest in the world. The income of the Asiatics is four times as high as it is in India. The income of the Coloureds is higher than that of all the inhabitants, including Whites, in Central Africa and Egypt and Ceylon. The hon. member for Queenstown admitted that the income of the Bantu in South Africa is higher than that of any other Natives in Africa, but it is even higher than the average income of the people in Madagascar and Egypt. But let us make another comparison, and take the position of motor cars in relation to the total population. In this regard the U.S.A. is first in the world and South Africa second in so far as Whites are concerned, but the non-Whites in South Africa to-day possess 100,000 motor vehicles. It is unnecessary for me to say that this is the highest in Africa. But what is also interesting is that per capita it is four times what the Russians possess in Russia. In the November 1959 issue of Commercial Opinion there was an article stating that: “Our living standards have risen during the past 20 years.” It has been said that we should take into account the cost of living and not talk about the increase in wages only. Here they did include the cost of living, and then the article says the following—

Then they go on to prove by means of statistics that the wages and the standard of living of the unskilled workers, who are mainly non-Whites, increased much faster than those of the rest of the population. Mr. Meiring, the Director of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, stated in 1959—

I can quote other figures also, but I will mention only one more. In 1959 Dr. Eiselen intimated that the purchasing power of the Bantu in South Africa has increased by 600 per cent since 1936, whilst that of the Whites in the same period increased by 300 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, a wrong impression is being created in regard to these matters. Conditions are not so bad. The Government is continually being reproached with reference to the low wages of unskilled labour, particularly for the non-Whites. But what are the facts? I just want to deal with it briefly. As I have indicated, the standard of living has risen considerably, but recently, and during the past few years particularly, tremendous improvements have been made in this regard, as I shall indicate. Let me first say this: It will be catastrophic simply to raise unskilled wages injudiciously, irrespective of circumstances and productivity. Accompanying this increase there should be an increase in productivity. If the lowest wages, those of unskilled workers, are increased, it increases the wage structure and also has the tendency to increase the higher wages, those of semi-skilled and other workers. That will increase the cost of production. The Prime Minister last year, after the deliberations of the Economic Advisory Council, issued a statement in connection with the economic development in the country and, inter alia, mentioned the steps which would be taken also in regard to the wages of unskilled workers. Later a statement was issued dealing with the Government’s policy in this connection, and I want to quote a few paragraphs from it. That statement was made in November 1960—

Then the statement further says—

I am quoting only a small part of it. But already in 1957 this Government took steps in regard to increasing the minimum wages of unskilled workers. It then split up the Wage Board into two sections in order to speed up the work and so as to be able to make wage determinations sooner. Since that time approximately 50 types of employment were investigated and more than 20 wage determinations were made. But what is interesting is that the wage increases resulting from those wage determinations amount to almost R20,000,000 per annum. The increases varied from place to place and I do not want to expand on that now—in Pretoria, e.g., from 16.6 per cent to 22.5 per cent; in East London 38 per cent, in the Western Cape 10 per cent to 29 per cent; in Johannesburg, 15 per cent, etc. I mention this to show that the Government did its duty in this respect. But, Sir, the city councils of the big cities are the big employers of unskilled labour, and what was their attitude? Those city councils are mainly controlled by supporters of the United Party and Progressive Party. Some of them had to be compelled to increase the wages of their unskilled workers. They had to be compelled to do so by the Wage Board, and after the determinations had been made some of them still asked for a postponement. Some city councils even asked whether it could not be postponed for another five years. I say the Wage Board does what it can, but only minimum wages are fixed. The capacity of the industry to pay and the productivity of the worker have to be borne in mind. The Committee for the Improvement of Bantu Wages and Productivity, inter alia, came to the following decision—

And they might as well have added “and the Government”—

Why is the Government then being accused if productivity is not being increased? It is principally industrial management which is responsible for that. The Government is doing its duty in this respect. It is said that in the economic sphere we should not discriminate on a racial basis. Now I want to ask the United Party and the Progressive Party whether they are in favour of the Bantu being protected in the Bantu territories? Are they in favour of it? No, there is no reply. I take it that they are in favour of it. Mr. Speaker, there the White man is kept out, and that is right. There the Bantu is protected. But in the White areas, where it is essential, the White man must not be protected; here everything must be thrown open. The same applies also to the Coloureds. The Leader of the Opposition also said after the referendum that there should be no economic discrimination against the Coloured. Now I want to put this question to them: Is the Opposition in favour of the policy of the Government that the Coloured in the Coloured areas—these towns and cities which are being built—should be protected, that they should have the sole right there, that the White man should eventually get out there, and that they should have the trading and professional rights there.

What Coloured areas are those?

I am referring to the Coloured towns and cities which are now springing up as the result of the application of the Group Areas Act. Sir, I have received no reply to my question, but I take it that the Opposition is in favour of the Coloureds being protected in their own areas. But then they object and say that the Whites are not being protected where necessary in their own areas. We want to give the Coloureds the fullest opportunity to develop to the highest level in their own areas.

What areas?

The Coloured towns and cities which are springing up here in places like Athlone and Elsies River, in our cities.

Are they not part of Cape Town?

I say that our policy is to give them the fullest opportunities there. In the White areas they will still continue working in the factories and industries; there is no objection to that, but when we say that in certain exceptional cases it is necessary to protect the White workers there is objection to it. If that is the attitude of hon. members opposite, there should be no talk about discriminating against the non-Whites, because that is discrimination against the Whites. Sir, it is said that the Coloureds cannot progress towards better jobs as the result of job reservation. What nonsense! Those hon. members and the people outside who continually talk about these things do not know what they are talking about. It is a fact that in the past few years the Coloureds have made tremendous progress in regard to obtaining good jobs—more than ever before. In the past few years they obtained jobs which formerly were exclusively occupied by Whites. I made some investigations, but I do not want to rely on that. I want to quote the evidence of other people. I quote from the Argus of 23 April, 1959—

There are still other instances where they point out that the Coloureds have progressed to more important jobs formerly held by Whites. But now hon. members create the impression that job reservation keeps the Coloureds in unskilled work only. That is not true. It is based on ignorance. I just want to read one more extract—

And then they again mention a long list including accountants, cashiers, clerks, secretaries, receptionists, etc., and they continue to say—

They then come to the conclusion that in many of these posts there were formerly no Coloureds. It is therefore not correct to say that job reservation keeps the Coloureds down; that is not the case at all. [Interjections.] I have already said that in the exceptional cases where it is necessary in the White areas, where the White man is being ousted, protective measures have to be applied cautiously. There, we say, it is essential to do so. We protect the Coloured, the non-White, in his own area; we give him full opportunities to develop, but when it becomes necessary in the White area the White worker has to be protected.

Against what?

These people have a lower standard of living. The great problem is the exploitation of cheap labour. These same industrialists who are so opposed to job reservation are not prepared to pay the Coloured a higher wage and to replace his Bantu workers with Coloureds. There are some industrialists who have so much to say against the Government but who have Bantu workers and who refuse to employ Coloureds because they regard Bantu labour as cheap labour. The time has arrived when even they will have to be forced by means of wage determinations to pay the Coloureds better wages, because we believe that particularly in the Western Province the number of Bantu will gradually have to be reduced because we have to protect the Coloureds. Sir, this same legislation is also there to protect the non-White; job reservation is also intended to protect the Coloured against being squeezed out by the Bantu. I repeat that our policy is one which aims, in a just manner, at doing the correct thing towards all the population groups. We protect the White man where it is necessary to do so, and on the other hand we give opportunities to the non-White in his own sphere and in his own area. This policy of separate development has not failed, as hon. members have contended. It is the only way in which racial harmony and peace can be maintained in South Africa. It is the only policy which offers a guarantee for maintaining the high standard of living which we have in South Africa to-day. It is the only policy which will allow justice to be done to all races, and it is the only policy which can ensure that we will have a united White nation in the Republic of South Africa.

I would make some remarks about the speech just made by the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers) and also the speech made by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration; but you will forgive me, Sir, if I delay those remarks for a moment, to say something about the motion of the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler). This motion differs from all the motions and all the speeches we have had from the hon. member for Queenstown since he joined the unrepresentative party which he represents to-day. In all previous speeches the emphasis has been laid upon the political revolution which the Progressive Party would like to bring about in this country. To-day we saw a strange caution in the speech of both members of the Progressive Party in dealing with that political revolution. Although in the motion as printed on the Order Paper there is a very clear reference to the fact that they want to destroy all barriers based on colour alone in the political field as well as in the economic field, they studiously avoided dealing with the political aspect of the question. That may be because they felt it was time to show the people of South Africa that they had other thoughts than this limited thought that we have had from them up to now, or it may be that that they are slightly concerned about the possible result in the by-election which takes place on Wednesday. Whichever it is, I want to say at once that there is very much in what was said by the hon. member for Queenstown with which we in the United Party agree. It cannot be otherwise, Sir, because after all the breakaway of the Progressive Party from the United Party was something artificial. You will recall that the Progressive Party broke away from the United Party because they refused to accept the only effective parliamentary weapon available to the Opposition in combating the Bantustan policy of the Nationalist Party Government.

No more land for reserves.

It is very clear that the only way in which an Opposition can effectively express its disapproval of a policy is to refuse to vote the money for the implementation of that policy. When our Union Congress instructed their representatives in Parliament to act accordingly my hon. friends there broke away from the United Party. They obviously could not sustain their attitude on that point alone. It was obviously an occasion for the breakaway and not the cause of the breakaway, and having broken away they had to set about finding a policy to justify the breakaway.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I am very touched by the eagerness of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to rush to the assistance of the Progressive Party.

No, I want to destroy them too.

The history of the hon. member for Vereeniging and of the Progressive Party is so similar in many respects, that I can only hope that the future of the Progressive Party will at some time diverge from the course which the hon. member for Vereeniging had chosen.

Then you should be as scared of them as you are of me.

Sir, they had to find a policy to justify this breakaway, a policy which would differ materially from that of the United Party. They appointed a commission of 12 members which brought out seven reports. They accepted to some extent the reports of the five members who seemed to agree about some things, but that too was entirely limited to their view of the political future of this country. To-day they have stated their economic policy which, as I say, we of the United Party can support in many ways, but of course differences have also emerged. First I want to mention two of the things upon which we agree with them most emphatically. The first is that the policy of apartheid has failed. That is not a new thought on the part of the Progressive Party; that is merely stating the obvious which has been brought home to, I think, half the people of South Africa over the past 12 years by the United Party. The second point on which we agree is that it is essential that the economic, social and political standards of all groups of the South African population should be raised. Party. The second point on which we agree is that it is essential that the economic, social and political standards of all groups of the South African population should be raised. There we agree too. The difference comes in the methods and the means and the dangerous policy proposed by my hon. friends in the Progressive Party for the achievement of this end. It is interesting that the Government’s spokesman in this debate, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. member for Vasco also seemed to agree on the second point of agreement that I have mentioned. If they do not emphasize their desire to raise the living standards of all groups of the population, both speeches made by hon. members on the Government side attempted to show that the criticism of the Opposition that this is not being done fast enough by the Government is unfounded and that actually the living standards of all sections of the population are rising faster under the Nationalist Party régime than we of the Opposition would give them credit for. That was the theme of both speeches, that spectacular results are being achieved by the Government in raising the living standards of all sections of the people. So it would seem that there is a considerable amount of agreement on that issue among all parties. The fallacy, of course, in the speeches made by hon. members opposite arises from their disagreement with the other point upon which the Progressive Party seems to agree with the United Party, namely, that apartheid has failed. I understand, of course, that members of the Government cannot agree with such a thesis. They do deep down in their hearts. Their very attempt to abandon the word “apartheid” in favour of the term “separate development” is evidence of the doubts in their own mind.

It is still the same policy.

Thank you for that interjection!

Sir, I shall resist using the obvious quotation from Shakespeare about the smell of a rose. But I want to make this point …

We use the word “apartheid” in our amendment.

I want to say at once that I am surprised that the word “apartheid” has been used in the amendment—for two reasons. Both speeches made in support of the Government amendment contain a long series of statistics, each one designed to prove that all the positive achievements to which the Government lays claim are in contradiction to the policy of apartheid. It may be that there were one or two sets of statistics quoted which one could call neutral. Thus the justifiable pride of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration in the big improvement in the literary standard of our Bantu people is a neutral argument, because that could be achieved whether you have apartheid or not. It would probably be achieved much faster if you did not have the narrow interpretation of apartheid which is the reason for the existence of the Nationalist Party Government. But that does not apply to the rest. The hon. the Deputy Minister quoted strings of figures to show that something like a quarter of a million Natives have been decently housed under their régime; that 50,000 to 60,000 housing units have been built under their régime.

More.

Or more. The higher he makes it the better it suits my argument. He quoted figures to show that the S.A. Railways and Harbours had spent millions and millions of pounds for the transport of Bantu workers. But, Sir, was any of that money spent or were any of those railway lines built in support of the policy of apartheid as defined by the Deputy Minister in the words of Mr. Strydom which he asked us to learn off by heart? Was anyone of those houses built or was anyone of those railway lines built in support of that policy that there should be a maximum concentration of Natives in the reserves and a minimum concentration of Natives in the urban areas outside the reserves. All that money was spent to make it possible to have a large and permanent Native population in our urban areas—a denial of apartheid. The hon. the Deputy Minister made a mistake which he corrected very quickly. The hon. member for Vasco made a similar mistake and was slightly less adroit at correcting it, but he also tried. The hon. the Deputy Minister said “Look at the Locations-in-the-Sky” Bill; we have taken some 40,000 Natives out of White areas and put them in Black areas. I then asked the hon. the Deputy Minister “When you say that you put them in Bantu areas, do you mean in the reserves?” and he replied across the floor of the House: “Not in the same urban area; just in a different locality.” Sir, those are the statistics quoted to us in support of the claim that apartheid is succeeding. You take Natives out of Ridgeway Court in Hillbrow and put them in a hostel in Jeppe and then you have created apartheid; there are now more Natives in the reserves and fewer in the urban areas! Sir, if ever you wanted a confession that apartheid has failed, it is the arguments advanced by these two hon. members in support of the thesis that apartheid is being applied in South Africa. Each one of these factors quoted in support of their policy by the Deputy Minister and his seconder, is a denial of Mr. Strydom’s statement which was quoted to us as the policy of the Nationalist Party that there must be a maximum concentration of Bantu in the reserves. If ever justification was needed for the statement that apartheid has failed, it has come from the speakers who supported the Government in this debate.

But, Sir, I was surprised for another reason at the use of the word “apartheid” in this amendment. You see, Sir, if “apartheid” is to have any meaning—we have said this so often before and hon. members opposite agree with us on this point—if apartheid is to have any moral content or justification, it must be that there will be a just partition of South Africa, between Black and White, residentially at least, and that the reserves will be adequate to give a decent living to the Native peoples or the vast majority of Native peoples in South Africa. We have indicated to the Government in the past that the division of the Union of South Africa that they propose is unjust—one-seventh of the surface of South Africa to the Natives and six-sevenths to the Whites, and they had an answer. Their answer was this: “Our policy is based upon the incorporation of the British Protectorates and the Crown colony of Basutoland, and if you take that into consideration, then half of South Africa’s territory will be Black and the other half White.” We had very eloquent statements to that effect. On 30 January 1959 in this House the Minister of Bantu Administration …

Was that when he met Grey Hughes?

Yes. On 30 January 1959 he cried out in one of his poetic declarations of faith to which we have become accustomed—

Sir, when one looks at the report of the Tomlinson Commission, which many of our Nationalist Party friends claim is still the scientific basis of the policy of apartheid, if you look at their recommendations, you find that all their recommendations for the consolidation of the Native areas, to make the Native areas viable units, in the case of the Tswanas, Basutos and the Swazis are based upon the assumption that Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland will be incorporated: in the Union.

The day will come when they will still request it.

Let us look at their proposals for the Tswanas.

And in the case of the Swazis—

And the same applies to the Basutos—

[Interjections.] The entire policy of this separate development based upon separate areas for the Native people, in the case of the vast majority of South African Natives is based upon the incorporation of the Protectorates. But what happened in this House last week? In his reply to the debate on the Constitution Bill, the Prime Minister told us that we South Africans must abandon the idea that the protectorates will ever be incorporated in the Union of South Africa. And according to their own expert testimony, according to the statements of the Minister of Bantu Administration, the success of the policy of apartheid was dependent upon the incorporation of these areas. They have abandoned incorporation; what is their policy now? If ever there was justification for saying that apartheid has failed, there we have part of that justification.

Where is the moral content now?

Certainly not with you.

But let me come back to the particular motion before the House. I mentioned already that there is much that we can support in that motion, but there are certain points of disagreement, and the first point of disagreement is where the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) makes the categorical statement that the Natives should have full rights to establish trade unions and the full right of collective bargaining under our Acts as trade unions. Mr. Speaker, that is an impossible suggestion. It is a suggestion that can only come from a party which knows in advance that it can never govern South Africa, which knows that the only rôle it can play in the politics of South Africa is that of an intellectual or perhaps less intellectual pressure group, which rôle they could just as effectively fulfil in some academic organization, perhaps more effectively than as a political party. It is perfectly true that the wages of our Natives should be raised. And let us as the representatives of the South Africa people never relax in paying tribute to the enlightenment of South African employers who far in advance of the legislative or administrative minima of the Department of Labour, have raised the wages of the Bantu workers in this country. But I believe, Sir, that the Native people should have some opportunity of participating in the civilized practice of collective bargaining, and the policy of the United Party has stated that that can only be done under the leadership of the White trade unions through a system of associate membership and that the White trade unions in negotiating wages, should also negotiate on behalf of their associate members. That is already practised in South Africa by several trade unions, especially the Typographical Union of South Africa. That is the solution. But to hand over the right and the power of establishing trade unions to all the Natives of South Africa, irrespective of their standard of civilization and development, is reckless.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. It is a motion of the Progressive Party, and if members of the Progressive Party want to ask me questions that is a different matter.

Can I go and sit over there and ask questions?

If that is the secret desire of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, I shall not frustrate him. Mr. Speaker, to give this tremendous power to the Native people, without applying the test the Progressive Party themselves deem necessary in the case of political power, is a denial of their own principles and they do not realize, with respect, the fire they will be setting alight in the economic and public life of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams), who seconded the motion, again indicating that the Progressive Party’s policy is that there should be no residential segregation whatsoever.

I said nothing of the kind.

Then there must be some difference as to the meaning of English words between the hon. member and myself. I heard him say it, and if I misheard him, he can tell me, that people should be allowed to live wherever they wish. I heard him say that.

That is not what I said.

Sir, if the Progressive Party is already running away from their original policy, they must say so. All I want to say is that in a society like the South African society, with people of different standards of development in civilization, a degree of residential segregation is absolutely necessary.

What is the degree?

It is essential in order to avoid friction, unnecessary friction between the one and the other.

What do you mean by “degree”?

I was confirmed in this conviction when I saw in some of the great cities of the United States of America the problems that arise where their Negroes moved into White cities, Negroes of a higher standard of civilization compared with the mass of our Natives. In a liberal city like the City of Chicago, special foundations are established to make it more difficult for Negroes to enter certain residential areas. Not because the Americans are racialists, not because they want to persecute their Negroes, but because the inhabitants of those areas have to face the fact that where these people move in, there is a depreciation of the value of property and friction does arise. And if that happens in the United States of America with its highly developed liberal conscience, how much more is it necessary in the Union of South Africa to avoid such friction and to avoid economic losses resulting therefrom.

My major point of difference with the hon. member for Queenstown is that in his speech to-day he again said that the Progressive Party, if ever it comes to power, is going to see to the abolition of the pass laws and of influx control. Mr. Speaker, any South African politician who says that and who has any regard for the interests not so much of the White people, but of the Bantu people of South Africa who are affected by influx control, is totally irresponsible and callous in his attitude towards the Black people.

You are becoming a very good Nationalist.

Marais in his Nationalist boots will become an occupational hazard to the United Party!

I would like to say in reply to the interjection of the hon. member for Salt River that influx control was introduced in an amendment to the Urban Areas Act of 1923, which was enacted in 1937, in Section 5bis of Act No. 46 of 1937, when, if I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Salt River was a member of the United Party Government, the Cabinet which introduced it and he never dissociated himself from it. And I would like to remind the hon. member that influx control was tightened up in Act 26 of 1945 when the hon. member was a distinguished member of the Smuts Government, and he never dissociated himself from that. He was elected to Parliament three times on that policy. What right has he now to come and say that we are deviating from the principles of the United Party?

I am not impressed by the type of argument that we got from the hon. member for Queenstown. It so happens, Sir, that the largest concentration of urban Natives in the Union of South Africa is in the city where I have the privilege of representing a constituency, the City of Johannesburg. There the municipality is charged with the daily administration of the problems, the intimate administration of the problems of something like 600,000 urban Natives. I do believe that the experts who from day to day are concerned with the administration of those people’s lives can speak with more authority on the United Party’s policy in regard to influx control, than the hon. member for Queenstown. I have had the privilege of studying and reading a paper by Mr. W. J. B. Carr, the manager of the Non-European Affairs Department of the City of Johannesburg, delivered in January of this year to the Institute of Race Relations, a most enlightening document on Native administration. I would commend it to the Progressive Party before they rush in again in this irresponsible manner. Let me say that in what I am going to say now I rely largely on this report of Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr points out that the Natives in the urban areas have done much to build up our cities and that they are entitled to some protection. He points out that in a city like Johannesburg there is to-day a slight degree of unemployment. He points out that many employers— and this may perhaps explain the attitude of the Progressive Party—prefer to continue to employ unskilled tribal or rural Natives rather than the children of those Natives who are detribalized and resident in the urban areas. They are more amenable, they are cheaper as labour, and the result is that the United Party City Council of Johannesburg has had to create a special department in order to try and assist the children of urban Natives into employment, very often against the threatened competition of tribal and rural Natives who many employers prefer to employ in preference to the urban born Natives. Of course the Progressive Party is not concerned about that. Mr. Carr points to the depressing effect which an unbridled influx of Natives into the urban areas would have upon the wages of those Natives already employed in those cities. He gives a very interesting set of statistics to show that the real increase of Native wages in a city like Johannesburg only became possible after 1946 when, with the help of the hon. member for Salt River, the United Party tightened up influx control in a city like Johannesburg. He gives the statistics and the facts. But now I would like to read just one extract from Mr. Carr’s paper—

Those were the years characterized by repeated outbreaks of appalling squatter camps brought about by the overwhelming pressure of people in the limited number of houses which were available. All the public services were strained to breaking point, and it is probably true to say that life in the squatter camps marked the lowest level of degradation to which the urban Native population in Johannesburg had ever sunk.

And that was in your time?

If the Progressive Party wants to return to those conditions, let them say so. It is well known that we in the United Party do not agree with the way in which the pass laws which are necessary for influx control and the way in which influx control itself is administered at present. Influx control is administered to-day for the convenience of bureaucrats and petty civil servants, and in a manner to further the ideological objects of the Government to divert the industrial development of South Africa to the border of the Bantustans in pursuance of the Government’s aims for South Africa. But we believe that those millions must be controlled. We believe that those measures must be adjusted to assist the Native population and to protect the urban Native against an uncontrolled influx from the tribal and rural areas by people to whom a city like Johannesburg is literally a city of gold, and that they could be deterred from flocking there in their tens of thousands to seek what they believe are the economic advantages that would accrue to them if they were freely allowed into that city. At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following further amendment—

1. (i) raise the standards of living of all population groups;
2. (ii) remove administrative and legislative insults to the dignity of citizens of the South African State;
3. (iii) share the fruits of civilization in practice among all constituent groups of the South African population; and
4. (iv) enable the participation of all groups of the population in the administration of the country subject to the overriding consideration that civilized standards and Western institutions shall be maintained”.

I think that the danger of some of these suggestions contained in the motion moved by, and the speech made by the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) can only be appreciated if one also considers that part of their motion about which they preferred not to speak to-day, and that is their political and constitutional aims. In that connection I should like to deal with those aims very briefly in the few minutes left to me. I should like to remind them, in case they do not realize it, that that part of their policy consists of certain elements. They have a principle, they have a belief, they are guilty of a miscalculation, they make an admission and they end in futility. Their principle is that by the application of some test one can determine who is civilized and who is not, and that all the people who satisfy that test of civilization as devised by them should be accepted as fully civilized people and that no distinction and no discrimination should apply to them. The test which they have evolved contains many alternatives, but the basic one from which these alternatives are derived is that to be civilized a person should have passed Std. VI and should earn £25 a month. Anybody below that who has some degree of literacy is not civilized but is placed in a political purgatory. He is placed on a separate voters roll to which they are otherwise opposed in principle. It would be, in effect, a communal roll but they will suffer the fate of being reduced to a political purgatory until such time as they can pass Std. VI or earn £25 a month. Then they will qualify for the heaven of the Progressive Party standard of civilization. That is their principle. Their belief is that members of all groups of the South African population who satisfy this merit test will join the White people, will join the Coloured people and the Indians in this country who are civilized, in protecting civilized standards against the millions of Bantu in this country —against their own people in this country who are knocking against the civilization bar of the Progressive Party. That is their belief.

Their miscalculation is that they have not been able to give any justification, in theory or in the experience of history, that those Bantu people who have passed the civilization test will gang up with other communities in this country in order to prevent the rest of their community from achieving political power. And in making this miscalculation they ignore the immediate past history of Africa where a great many states have gained freedom but where fewer and fewer individuals are allowed to enjoy freedom in those free states. There we find the shadow of Western institutions but nothing of the substance of democracy. Their miscalculation is that they ignore the power of nationalism. [Interjections.] They believe that by passing standards such as Std. VI, a man loses all group attachments. If I may loosely quote an article I read the other day in the Daily Telegraph, there is not the slightest doubt that while democracy and universal franchise may be used by many of the primitive African communities to prise loose a White oligarchy, it is also used as a glue to stick a Black dictator in his place.

You are condemning your own policy.

No I am not. I am condemning a policy which thinks that you can alienate people from their group affiliation. The United Party recognizes that and says that we must give people their political representation, if the community as such is primitive, as a group. You have to recognize that. But the Progressive Party seeks to deny this essential fact.

What about nationalism? [Interjections.]

Order, order!

I want to say that not only do we realize the eventual results of this policy but the Black nationalists of the Union of South Africa also realize it. The Progressive Party has published a pamphlet in this by-election that is taking place at Green Point, and they have adopted a patron saint for the purpose. On the front page of their pamphlet there is a testimonial to the Progressive Party from Chief Albert Luthuli of the A.N.C. I have no objection to that. I think that Chief Albert Luthuli is perfectly entitled to give testimonials to any political party and I believe that any political party is perfectly entitled to use such testimonials. But what is interesting is that this very Chief Luthuli who gives this testimonial does not believe in the policies of the Progressive Party.

Neither does he believe in yours.

That is not the point, we do not use him; he is not a patron saint of the United Party. The same Mr. Luthuli, when the Molteno Report of the Progressive Party was published on 15 November 1960 repudiated the Progressive Party. He said that the challenge they have to face is universal franchise. That is all that will satisfy Luthuli. But this Chief Luthuli now supports the Progressive Party. Why does a man support a party with whose principles he does not agree? Only because he believes that by supporting that party he will create a situation where his own principles will prevail. That is the inevitable consequence of the Progressive Party policy—universal franchise, one vote one man, which, if you want to solve the problems of Africa by an acceptance of 19th century radicalism is correct. [Time limit.]

I second the further amendment.

The speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister made when moving his amendment this afternoon, plus the evasions of their own policy by the speakers representing the Progressive Party, have made it quite clear that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) offers to this country and to the people of this country the only hope of a future and of a solution to our problems. But what was also proved even more clearly by the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister is the fact that the real mischief in this country and the real danger to our future remains the policy of the Nationalist Government. Throughout his speech he indicated clearly the absolute inflexibility with which they approach all their problems; the absolute refusal to recognize facts and the determination to live in a world of fantasy. It is that living in a world of fantasy which is the real danger to South Africa and the real block between ourselves and a solution to our racial problems.

The hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon quoted long lists of figures to prove how much has been done in the sacred name of apartheid; figures of housing, figures of railways, education and one thing and another. My colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville, proved very clearly that that was no more than the ultimate proof from the mouth of the Deputy Minister himself of the failure of their policy. Because their policy—and they cannot get away from it—is the policy of Bantustan, of complete separation and the creation of separate states developing into self-government. I emphasize this because it is the background against which this whole problem of the economic development of South Africa, the security of our economy and the future of our race relations must be studied. I want to put very clearly, as the background to anything I say, the picture of a Government determined to proceed along the road to the creation of separate states developing to self-government and independence. Just to quote one figure against the myriad quoted by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Long after the Tomlinson Commission had said that the development of the reserves would cost £104,000,000 in the first ten years, the State Information Office published other figures. A year later they said that the money required for industrial development alone, apart from housing, education, soil conservation, merely to create industries in the Bantustans would require £200,000,000, and that if this £200,000,000 were spent over 40 years, it would absorb 750 Bantu workers per year. At the end of 40 years only 30,000 Bantu workers would be absorbed. And if you take that cost of £200,000,000 and compare it with the figures quoted here—that is R400,000,000 against the R86,000 quoted for housing and the amounts quoted for railway development and so forth —it is a drop in the ocean. This Government is not carrying out its policy any more than the Progressive Party speakers spoke to their policy this afternoon. They criticized the Government for what it was doing but they ran away from their own policy.

I want to deal in particular with the comment made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) which, I believe, cannot be allowed to pass unreplied to. He accused the hon. member for Yeoville of wearing Nationalist boots and he stated that he had followed the policies which he followed during the years 1937 to 1948, when he was in the Government—to use his own words— “Because I had to support a weak Minister of Native Affairs”. A shocking statement! I want to ask the hon. member whether that is all his morality and his conscience were worth, that he was able to follow and carry out policies that he did not agree with? That as Minister of Justice he was able to see people imprisoned for doing things which he did not believe to be wrong. Was that the conscience which allowed him, as Minister of Justice, to see people gaoled for breaking laws which he believed were immoral? Did he do that to support a weak Minister of Native Affairs or did he believe in the policies for which he stood?

I will tell you what I meant by that interjection in due course.

We on these benches are entitled, I think, to reply to this continual sniping that is taking place from the side-lines. I stated clearly that we consider that the Nationalist Party is the real danger to South Africa and to South Africa’s future. Our task as an Opposition is to fight that party. It has perhaps been put more clearly than I can put it in describing the attitude of the Progressive Party. I want to quote from a Press report—

Those are strong words and I would not have used them myself. Those are the words of the hon member for Zululand (Mr. R. A. F. Swart). The only difference was that he was referring to the Federal Party at that time and not to the Progressive Party. His views are very interesting. The report goes on—

Mr. Swart said he had received a mandate from the electorate of Zululand to fight the Nationalist Party.

What do you think he is doing?

Fighting the United Party, which is what all the members of the Progressive Party are doing and nothing else. I want to deal with the next view of the hon. member for Zululand and I think that perhaps this might be listened to by the hon. member for Salt River—

How right!

Yes. we have just heard the hon. member for Salt River. But by whom are these accusations made? Listen to this—

Interesting views, Mr. Speaker. This report goes on and it says—regarding differing views within the United Party—

The formation of the Federal Party is the outward symptom of frustrations, or the result of a clash of personalities … The United Party offers the opportunity to elect into authoritative positions at Congress of the Party anybody whom they may so desire, subject only to the democratic practice that the majority decision should be accepted by the minority.

Those are the words of the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) who believes that the majority decision should be accepted by the minority. And this party, elected to fight the Nationalist Party, stands here sniping at us while we are trying to deal with the real enemy of South Africa.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) outlined to us this afternoon a course which, as I stated, does offer a real hope for South Africa and for the solution of our racial problems. It offers, in fact, the only road to peaceful co-existence in this country. Therefore, because peaceful coexistence is essential for the future and because that future is dependent on co-existence, I believe and this party believes that the road outlined by our amendment is the only hope for securing that future.

The mover of the original motion, the hon. member for Queenstown, who spoke of the economic aspects of the motion carefully avoided the clear statement in the motion referring to political rights and full participation in the economic and political life of the country—but that hon. member claims to be entrenching civilized standards. That is the objective at which he aims, the maintenance of civilized standards. The hon. the Deputy Minister, from his side, claims to be entrenching the future of the White man. These two points of view, both based on the same philosophy, the philosophy that a thing must be black or it must be white, are both wrong. The Nationalist Party, through the Deputy Minister, believes that you must have total apartheid, complete segregation, and that apartheid is the answer to everything. The Progressive Party believes that you must destroy all barriers based on race and so preserve civilized standards. One is wishing to build barriers higher, the other wishing to destroy them altogether. The third direction which South Africa has followed with success over the years, the solution which faces the problem squarely and which makes the solution fit the facts instead of the facts fit the ideal, or fit blue prints worked out in advance, is the United Party’s solution. Both these parties believe that you can work out a blue print and then bend the facts to meet that blue print. The amendment moved by this side of the House takes into account the essential differences between various groups and peoples. I can put it fairly clearly in these terms—

That puts the case fairly clearly. Those are the words of the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) in a pamphlet issued to his division two and a half years ago. The United Party recognizes the difference between peoples whereas the liberal view, which is synonomous with the progressive view in terms of direction has here been shown to be wrong. The Progressive Party is exactly where the Liberal Party started when they formed a party. They started with a qualified franchise at Standard VI, but they had to abolish it and accept universal franchise. In the same way as they hoped to change the policy of this party when they were in the party, so they have now, in their party, ex-Chief Luthuli who, in his way, will try to change their policy to one of universal franchise. And if they achieve any backing among that group of leaders, so they will have to move more and more in the direction of universal franchise. They have accepted the basic principle of a Common Roll, and having accepted that principle they cannot escape the next step, which is the removal of qualifications. And the Liberal Party started on exactly the same premise, that you start with a qualified franchise. But they were forced to abandon that.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it the policy of the United Party to prescribe qualifications for the Coloured voters whom they propose to put back on the Common Roll?

The hon. member ought to know the answer to that. He was present at the Congress which took the decision. He was one of the people who spoke very strongly in favour of putting the Coloureds back on the Common Roll. He was one of the people who spoke most enthusiastically in favour of that point of view, and he was one of the persons who agreed that it would be unwise to specify qualifications without first consulting the leaders of the Coloured people.

That was four years ago.

It is funny how views change!

When do you propose to consult the Coloured leaders?

When we become the Government of this country, as we will in due course. That was always the policy which they supported. The reason they are trying to ask these questions now is because of the mess they have made when they tried to prescribe qualifications without the support of the people for whom they were prescribing. We will certainly do much better, now that we do not have the difficulties we had before with the hon. member for Salt River.

I said that the United Party accepted the difference between different groups. We therefore state clearly in our amendment that the overriding consideration is that civilized standards and western institutions shall be maintained. We believe that the first requirement, the first essential in any policy is the recognition of the individual dignity of any person; the recognition of the dignity of every human being irrespective of race, colour or creed. And there the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with us. For that reason the second leg of our amendment calls for the removal of all administrative and legislative insults to the dignity of citizens of the South African State. We believe that more harm is done in the treating of people in our daily lives than is done by laws and legislation. It is the way you treat people that ultimately determines their attitude to you. The Progressive Party can come forward with pretty theories but what will ultimately determine whether we live in harmony in this country, is the way people treat each other. Therefore, fundamental to the United Party policy and planning is the recognition of the dignity of every individal, a dignity which is completely scorned by the Nationalist Party despite the smooth words of the hon. the Deputy Minister; a dignity which is scorned in every act taken by this Government, every law which is passed. A dignity which does not matter in their eyes provided the ideology of the Government can be steam rollered through.

We have confidence in our ability to create harmonious existence based upon that recognition of human dignity, not lip service but in reality. That, I believe, was the turning point in the Government’s failure in their policy. I said earlier that the Government policy was one of development to self-Government, development of Bantustans in their own way. I now want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to the fact that he was warned as long ago as June, 1959 that his policy was failing. He was warned by none other than the body which he himself had created, the parliament of the Transkei, the Transkeian Territorial Authority. In a debate in that Authority on 3 June he was warned in these terms—

and so it goes on. Later this was said—

Then the next speaker said—

Then the next one says—

There is a clear warning that the Minister’s own leaders of Bantustan are not accepted by their own people, that their people objected to the system and to the laws being passed and that those chiefs were in danger of their lives. But it did not end there. In the next year, 1960, the same resolution appealing for arms to protect themselves was tabled on 6 May 1960. The mover said—

You are now assisting the communists.

These are the words published by this Minister in a Blue Book, yet his Whip says that the Minister is aiding the communists. He says that the Government by publishing this clear warning by their own chiefs in the Territorial Authorities, is assisting the communists. Why does not the Whip do something about it? Why does he not stop his Minister helping the communists, if that is the case?

Order, order! The hon. member may not say that the Minister is assisting the communists.

No, the Whip said it, Mr. Speaker.

Order, I know what the Whip said.

The Whip said that I was assisting the communists, and I say that this is a publication by the Government, under authority of the Minister. If the Whip believes that this is helping the communists, then it is the Minister who published it and not I who am quoting it, who is helping the communists.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, should not the hon. Whip withdraw that allegation?

Mr. Speaker, it is the way the hon. member was making use of that quotation.

May we know, Sir, is it parliamentary for one hon. member to say of another that he is assisting the communists? Because that is what he said.

The hon. member may proceed.

I think I have shown quite clearly and with such effect that the Government Whip had to interfere because of the proof being so clear, that the Bantustan policy of the Government is failing even amongst the people who are supposed to be most in favour of it and to be its greatest adherents; the people who allegedly pleaded for it and supported it wholeheartedly. In their own words in their own council they have given clear proof that they are living in fear of their lives, afraid of their own tribesmen whom they are supposed to be governing. What else does this prove? That coupled with the sort of resolution you get here, this policy has failed. May I quote a few of them? Of the first seventeen resolutions on the first page of this Blue Book, fifteen call for the removal of restrictions: removing the restrictions on movements; relax the restrictive regulations on slaughter stock; relax the regulations governing the control of East Coast fever; extend the dipping interval; relax the law relating to stock limitation; refrain from prosecuting stock owners; not to castrate bull calves. There is only one positive motion among them all.

If you take the next year you find exactly the same thing: extension of dipping interval; dip cattle every three months; avoid frequent dipping; exclude the dispositions of stock for any established customary purpose; all fines to be paid to the Territorial Authorities; removal of restriction on purchase of blood stock, and so on and so forth. Throughout these resolutions they call for the removal of restrictions placed there in the interest of and for the welfare of the people who live under them. And those are the people who are to govern themselves. Those are the people whom the Progressive Party wish to regard as civilized and to whom they are prepared to hand over the government of this country. And here where they have local government, in terms of the resolutions they pass year after year, it is quite clear what they would do with any authority given them without the control of white leadership. They would use that authority to destroy the structure of our civilization, the structure of the system under which we live. It is clear that there are only three issues in the minds of these members of the Territorial Authority. The first is to remove restriction. The second is to get complete control of their own soil and their country. The third is to get more land. They ask to exercise full control of their own affairs and they ask for the annexation of neighbouring White areas to the Transkei. Three things: the removal of control, more land and complete control for themselves. That is the Government’s policy and that is what it has led to as shown in these Minutes. And the Progressive Party is prepared to take those people and to regard them as being equal to those with a civilization of hundreds of years merely because their test of civilization is Standard VI and/or certain income qualifications.

It is interesting to note that in 1958 there were 64,000 non-Whites in Standard VI as against 57,000 White children in this country. But in my own Province of Natal as long ago as 1954 the non-White figure passed the White, not for Standard VI where there is also an economic qualification, but for Junior Certificate. In 1954 for the first time there were 2,217 non-White Junior Certificate students and 2,190 Whites. Since 1954 in terms of the test which according to the Progressives, gives a person the vote, with no economic qualifications attached, the Whites have been outnumbered each year. There are, in Natal, 250,000 non-White children at school, against 48,000 White children. Five non-White to every White. But that test of Standard VI, according to the Progressive Party, turns each of those people into a civilized human being. If he has, for instance, Std. VI, plus £24 a month income according to the Progressives he is not a civilized man. But any one of us has the power to civilize him by increasing his pay by 5s. a week. So that any one of us can take an uncivilized barbarian, raise his pay by 5s. a week and call him civilized.

Why not give them more and be done with it?

I think they wish they could when they find the mess they have made in this attempt to define civilization. I am trying to point out the fallacy of trying to define civilization by applying an arbitrary test of Std. VI or J.C. and saying that is going to make a civilized man; taking the test that a person may be married to someone and is therefore entitled to be regarded as civilized.

What if he divorces his wife?

The problem is not if he divorces his wife but which of his wives does he choose if he has five or six wives? Which one is to come on the voters’ roll? Or do all the wives come on the voters’ roll if the husband has passed J.C.

What about civil marriages?

There is no reference to civil marriages, it says marriage to a person having the income or property qualification.

Marriage surely means marriage?

No, not in this country.

[At 3.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 41 (3) and the debate was adjourned until 24 February.]

The House proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Econmics and Marketing spoke previously in reply to speeches from this side of the House his main argument was that this side of the House had not spoken in terms of the motion of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), namely, not on proper economic planning in agriculture, but that they had made a number of loose allegations about what hard times the farmers were experiencing now, and that they had entirely ignored the aspect of economic planning. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister is not here. I accept that it is impossible for him to be here and that the hon. Minister over there must act for him. I only want to say that it is a pity that the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing in his reply did the same thing he accused this side of the House of doing. If this side of the House made loose allegations then the hon. the Minister in his reply fell into the same trap and he made just as many loose allegations and also did not speak about economic planning. The main theme in his entire argument was this—and it has nothing to do with economic planning—that a certain number of farmers made a success of farming and that other farmers in the same circumstances failed to do so. I do not know what that has to do with economic planning, and I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that the idea of economic planning is precisely that one should help the less privileged man and the man who is not in a position to keep his head above water under the system of free supply and demand, to do so. With economic planning one must enable the broad mass of the industry to remain above water and not only a number of people with a little more sense than the average. I think the hon. the Minister in his speech the other day failed to convince us that he had grasped the spirit of this motion, as the hon. member for Gardens intended it.

I also want to say this. I think the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), from the point of view of the farmer, delivered a far better speech than his own Minister did. I want to congratulate him on that. I think that with certain aspects of his speech he put his finger on the sore spots which exist in our agriculture to-day and I think the House should be grateful to him for it.

Mr. Speaker, if one speaks of an industry and about what should be done in such an industry to give general prosperity to the largest possible number of those engaged in the industry, then one should study the history of the industry and see what happened in the past and see if it is necessary to introduce economic planning for such an industry.

I think that if we conduct a debate in this House about planning it behoves us in the first instance to ask: Is economic planning and planning in general necessary in agriculture? In this connection I wish to go back a little into the history of agriculture in South Africa. Until 1932 and 1933, the depression years, agriculture in South Africa functioned generally under the system of free supply and demand. There was no planning in regard to distribution and there was no Marketing Act. Neither were there planning in regard to production and there were very little planning in regard to credit and financing. If we want to analyse if planning in agriculture is really necessary we should ask ourselves whether the old system of free supply and demand really brought agriculture anywhere. I do not think there is anyone in the House who will allege that the old system of free supply and demand, of a free economy without any planning, benefited agriculture. On the contrary, the result was that in 1932 and 1933 the State was saddled with more or less 300,000 poor Whites who had their origin on the farms of South Africa and for whom agriculture could no longer provide a living. Then it was thought from all sides of the country that this system of a free economy would not only make the weak farmer bankrupt but that it would also prevent an able farmer from making a living on the land. From various sides, and also from the side of the Government, thoughts of a planned economy for agriculture were then entertained.

The first result of that was the Farmers’ Assistance Act of 1935 through which the State stepped in to save thousands of farmers. I cannot imagine what the position of the farmers would have been if it were not for that Act. But that in itself was not actual economic planning; it was an emergency measure. The next step was the introduction of the Marketing Act, which in itself was actually a big economic planning measure, a step which provided that there should be planning and regulation in the distribution of the farmer’s products and that the marketing of the farmer’s products should not be left to the free play of supply and demand. The introduction of the Marketing Act was the first important measure towards economic planning in the distribution and marketing of agricultural products. The Act was welcomed generally but it was also realized over the years that planning in the marketing and distribution of agricultural products would not help much if one did not also plan its production. In this country we have not yet gone so far as to work out careful plans for the farmer’s production, and it is also doubtful whether we shall ever achieve it. The furthest we have come was the Soil Conservation Act of 1946, in which you can plan the method of production of the farmer; where you can apply farm planning and combat soil erosion and can advocate more balanced farming, under the guidance of the State and on the advice of the State.

As far as financing and credit are concerned I want to say that I do not believe much economic planning has been done by the State. Except for the establishment of the Land Bank not much attention has been given to it. If I want to discuss the policy of this Government over the past 13 years and I want to make out a case that I think they had not given sufficient attention to economic planning, then the Government would expect me to make out a case that they had not applied the Marketing Act, which was the first planning measure, according to proper economic norms. Secondly, I would have to make out a case that they did not apply the Soil Conservation Act properly, and thirdly, I would have to make out a case that the credit policy of this Government in respect of agriculture has not been successful. But at this stage I want to move—

I second.

Agreed to: debate adjourned until 10 March.