I want to take the House into my confidence with regard to the work for the rest of the Session and the probable date on which we can bring the Session to an end. If we were to go on with the Estimates only we would finish on 5 June. Then you have all the financial Bills and the Bills which are on the Order Paper at present plus certain financial Bills which my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has already discussed with the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and which he can introduce before the Estimates are passed. As you know, Sir, the trouble is that the Minister of Finance always has a lot of Bills which flow from the Estimates, so we have to keep other financial matters on the Order Paper back so that while he is in the Other Place, this House will have something to go on with. As a result of this there is the mistaken belief—very often mistaken—that Parliament rushes a lot of Bills through at the end of the Session. I am not saying that the Government rushes them through but that Parliament rushes them through. This is an old complaint, but I think it is due to a misunderstanding; we have to keep a lot of legislation back. The hon. the Minister of Finance will try to introduce as many of his financial Bills as soon as possible while the Estimates are still under discussion so that he can get those measures to the Other Place. That will shorten the Session to a certain extent.

Sir, we will not sit on Republic Day. Republic Day is actually 31 May, but the public holiday is on 1 June. We did not sit on Republic Day last year either.

We will have to start morning sittings, and after discussion with the Whips we have decided to start morning sittings on 2 June, from 10 o’clock in the morning. If we do that, and with the help that I am getting from the hon. the Minister of Finance in getting as many as possible of his Bills through this Chamber before the Estimates are disposed of, we hope to finish the Session round about 15 June. This is not a fixed date. It might be a few days earlier or a few days later, but that is the date that we have fixed with the cooperation of the Whips. I think it is necessary that hon. members should have some indication as to when the Session will end, that also applies to the Parliamentary staff and to representatives of the Press who have to come down here specially for the Session. I cannot say that the Session will come to an end on the 15th but that is the date we have in mind; it might be a few days earlier or it might be a few days later. As I know Parliament it will probably be a few days later rather than a few days earlier.

With regard to the Estimates, we are now dealing with the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and as soon as we have disposed of his Vote we will go on with the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs. As far as I can see, this will be the only break in the order in which the Votes appear in the Estimates. As hon. members are aware, the Minister of Economic Affairs has to leave next week for a conference overseas and we want to dispose of his Vote before he leaves.

I do not think there will be much more legislation, apart from the legislation which already appears in the Order Paper. As far as I know nothing contentious will be introduced which is not on the Order Paper at present.

When the House adjourned last night I was dealing, to the obvious discomfort of hon. members on the Government benches, with the cold hard facts of life of the Bantustan revolution which the hon. the Prime Minister is conducting in South Africa. Sir, hon. members opposite resent one’s dealing with this subject on the basis of facts because they are having to realize that Bantustans do not grow on gooseberry bushes; they have to be grafted on to the economic tree of South Africa. We have been trying to find out from the Government the extent to which it is prepared to make South Africa pay for the economic aspect of the political policy which it has forced on the country. There has only been one proper investigation into what this is going to cost. The hon. the Minister himself was convinced that a minimum of R86,000,000 would have to be spent in the first ten years purely on the economic aspects. The Minister was himself convinced of that but the Government rejected his own figure, for political reasons, because it would frighten the voters off. Therefore the Government said that a lesser amount was necessary. But now the ten years have passed, the ten years during which urgent action had to be taken. Last night I indicated that expenditure on industrial development, through the only body entitled to invest in the Bantu areas, the Bantu Investment Corporation—no White man, no private White company can invest there—was some R600,000 which is less than 1 per cent of the minimum of R86,000,000 which was required. In the ten years since the Tomlinson Commission reported, in the five years since Bantustans got under way and in the four years since the Bantu Investment Corporation has been operating, only 1 per cent of the minimum of R86,000,000 has been spent. The hon. the Prime Minister realized that this was not the answer to the problem and therefore he pulled a rabbit out of the hat in the form of border industries. We heard a great deal yesterday from the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) in regard to what border industries have done towards meeting the unemployment problem. He carefully avoided the fact that the Prime Minister’s own Economic Advisory Council had stated specifically that the Development was not going nearly fast enough. But the hon. member for Heilbron produced some interesting figures. He maintained that 42,000 Bantu were employed in border industries. Well, I have here the reports which are available for the last two years, that is to say, the report for the year 1961 and for the year 1962. Border industries have only been pushed by the Government in the last two or three years, and when we look at the South African Digest for April 1962 we find that in the year 1961, a total of 1,239 Bantu was employed in new border industries, following an expenditure of R3,000,000. When we look at the report issued by the permanent committee for the location of industry and the development of border areas we find that in 1962 with an expenditure of R5,300,000, 1,850 were employed. That means that for an investment of over R8,000,000 in border areas 3,000 Bantu workers have been given employment. If that is so—and these are Government figures, they are the figures of the permanent committee, figures published in Government documents; they are not my figures—if the position is that 3.000 were given employment in 1961 and 1962, where then did the other 39 000 to which the hon. member for Heilbron referred suddenly materialized from? Either he has to say that the bulk of them were employed since December 1962, which I don’t believe, or they were already in employment in industries which have now been classified as border industries for the purposes of a political propaganda campaign. That is the real truth, Sir. Here I have the figures from the same Government document: 3,000 have been employed as a result of positive Government assistance through new industries created since 1961. The rest were there before them. But now the hon. member for Heilbron and the Government claim that that is the answer. They are pretending to have absorbed workers who were already in employment before. They have not taken them out of the White areas; they have classified industries in the White areas as border industries. They are trying to pretend that they are meeting the problem. In point of fact, all they have done, is to extend Bantustans into the White area. They have stretched the borders of Bantustan down to the White area. They are beginning to realize more and more that this policy will fail unless they continue to do that. Unless they bring all the borders down to our cities they have not a hope of employing the Bantu who become available for labour every year. The answer is quite clear, Mr. Chairman. I want to refer to the views of the Chairman of the I.D.C., Dr. Van Eck who admitted in an address two years ago that he was at odds with the Prime Minister. He said the following about the Prime Minister’s policy of border areas and no White capital in the Bantu areas—

He was talking of the political case—

Then he goes on to deal with the essential need for White capital and skill in the reserves if the reserves are to be developed. That has been confirmed by many, many speakers. This is the warning I want to give from Dr. Naude who spoke at the same seminar at which Dr. van Eck spoke. He said this—

I have innumerable quotations here from these two speakers, which prove beyond any shadow of doubt, supported by Dr. Holloway in many regards, that the concept of the Bantu building up their own economy within the reserves without White capital and skill was ridiculous. You can get a few basket-making industries, perhaps a coffin-making factory, perhaps a few industries of that nature, but, they say, when it comes to the real industrialization of the reserves you will have to have White capital and skill. Mr. Chairman, they made it equally clear that border industries were not the solution. They made it quite clear that whatever you did—I am quoting Dr. van Eck—“the industrialist had to decide to go to a border area where there were no cinemas, cafés, schools or other amenities for his supervisory staff; no water, no roads, no communications, etc.”. These are not politicians talking, Sir, these are industrialists, these are economists, these are people who know what is needed. Dr. van Eck carnes to this conclusion—

[Time limit.]

In reply to what Dr. van Eck and others are supposed to have said and to which the previous speaker has referred, I just want to point out that they said that two years ago. I also wish to draw the attention of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) to the fact that when the hon. the Prime Minister came forward for the first time with the idea of border industries, the economists of South Africa were not interested in the idea at all. They did not want to have anything to do with it. Now that they see where it is leading to and what can be done most of them have changed their minds.

Here are the figures.

Those figures are two years old. Border industries have really only been boosted since 1959.

I wish to return to the figures I quoted yesterday. These figures are not without foundation. These figures are based on a survey made by the Department in this connection. Before I go into these figures I wish to explain once again what is meant by border industries. It is true that the Department of Commerce and Industry classifies decentralized industries as border industries for certain purposes, such as concessions to those industrialists. Certain industries at Durban, for instance, are not classified as border industries because Durban has always been a metropolitan industrial centre. The entire complex of industries at Durban is not classified as border industries so that those industrialists can enjoy those concessions. That is likewise the position in other cities. In spite of that there are still Bantu areas which are close to Durban such as the Bantu area of Umlazi. Umlazi is on Durban’s doorstep. There are workers who live in Umlazi but who work in Durban. The industries in Durban are not classified as border industries but it does not follow that the Bantu who work there are not working in border industries. [Laughter.]

What about Johannesburg.

That is not the position in the case of Johannesburg because there is no Bantu area nearby. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) is of course so stupid that he does not know there is no Bantu area near Johannesburg. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Florida can make a speech later.

There are probably three-quarter of a million Bantu working in industries in Johannesburg. There are many working in Bloemfontein and in Cape Town but that does not make those industries border industries. They become border industries when the Bantu workers live in Bantu areas in spite of the fact that they are not classified by the Department of Commerce and Industry as border industries for concession purposes.

What Dr. Eiselen was supposed to have said was quoted to us yesterday. It is obvious that those figures of Dr. Eiselen only refer to the area of which he is Commissioner General. The hon. member laughs but the area which falls under the Department of Bantu Administration is divided into various areas each one with its own chief Bantu Commissioner. I wish to give the figures employed in border industries in the northern areas: 14,631 are employed as labourers; 1,951 are employed in higher paid posts. That gives you a total of roughly 16,000. That is in respect of the northern areas. If Dr. Eiselen gives the figures of 15,000 it is obvious that he only refers to his own area. Yesterday I mentioned the figure of 42,000 and I want to be very exact as far as that figure is concerned because I think it is essential. According to that survey 42,615 Bantu are employed in border industries. This figure includes those Bantu who work in White areas but live in a Bantu area, like Umlazi for example. [Interjections.] Yes, Umlazi too. There is nothing wrong with that. Umlazi is a Bantu area. The Bantu there live in their own area, namely, Umlazi and work in White industries. Of these 42,615 Bantu nearly 7,500 work in higher paid posts. This is where border industries are directly concerned. I now come to those who are indirectly concerned. The number of Bantu I referred to yesterday are not only dependent on border industries.

May I ask a question?

No, you may not. The hon. member can make his own speech later on; I only have ten minutes. The hon. member only wants to waste my time. Yesterday I gave the figure of 200,000 as being in employment to-day and no longer dependent on agriculture. Before this Government came into power the Bantu in the Bantu areas were only active in agriculture and stock-breeding. But since this Government has been in power it has started to develop those areas and the Bantu engaged in that development together with those working in the border industries number approximately 200,000 which includes the 42,000, working in border industries in the Bantu areas. I just want to mention these figures, Mr. Chairman, so that you can realize what the position is. There are still some Bantu who work in White undertakings. In all the towns in the Transkei there are Bantu who work in White undertakings but live in Bantu areas. The Bantu Authorities as well as Bantu undertakings, of which there are no fewer than 11,000 to-day in the Bantu areas, employ Bantu. Bantu are employed in educational services, health services and in the fibre industry. If you take all those together, Sir, you arrive at approximately 200,000. That means there are 200,000 who are no longer active in agriculture. On the basis of five persons per family it means that approximately 1,000,000 no longer make their living from agriculture. That is clearly the position; we cannot get away from these figures.

How many have always been employed in those industries?

Very, very few. I now come to the further argument advanced by the hon. member. He referred to what the Bantu Development Corporation was doing. He said R700,000 was advanced during the first year and R600,000 during the second year. He says there has been a decline. Mr. Chairman, but that is no argument. During the first year many Bantu availed themselves of those facilities because they did not exist previously. Consequently the accumulated needs were met in the first year. After the initial rush, to put it that way, there will obviously be a decline.

The hon. member made another misrepresentation. He referred to what the Bantu Development Corporation was doing but he forgot what was being done by the Department of Bantu Administration and by the Trust Fund. Does he not know how many millions of rand the Bantu Trust Fund is to-day pumping into the Bantu areas? Not R500,000 but over R20,000,000.

Into industries?

Not only into industries but into many other activities. A state does not only consist of industries. This hon. member must not misrepresent the position by saying only R600,000 was advanced—only 1 per cent. I think it is a ghastly misrepresentation. I have given the figure of the number of Bantu who are employed there. That is the test. The test is not how many pounds you are spending but to how many people you are providing employment. That was why I limited myself to the number who were provided with employment under this policy. Border industry development is only in its initial stage.

It is ten years too late.

It is not ten years too late at all. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) may be right when he says some of the figures used by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) are not valid. But I must say that that same argument applies to himself. Let us look at some of the figures he used this morning and last night. First of all he makes the extraordinary statement that because he has estimated that 42,000 people are employed in border industries as a whole and 200.000 employed in the industries, such as the production of sisal, and other industrial establishments, inside the reserves. He multiplied this 200,000 by five and then came to the interesting conclusion that a livelihood, outside of agriculture, has been provided for 1,000,000 people. This, of course, is not a new idea. If I remember correctly the hon. the Prime Minister came up with this bright idea last year when he worked out that over the next 50 years it would be possible for the Republic to provide 500,000 Bantu with employment in border industries and inside the reserves. He multiplied that by five and thought he had solved the whole problem of employing Bantu.

Why don’t you believe it?

Because it is nonsense and I shall tell the hon. member why it is complete nonsense. First of all, not even in the urban areas, where higher wage rates are paid, is it possible for one member of an African family to support that family, even at a subsistence level, by his own earnings. Two members of the family usually have to work. In most urban families it is not only the father who works but the mother has to work and very often some of the children as well. This is the main reason why the majority of African children in South Africa leave school in Std. II, because the family simply cannot exist on the earnings of one member of the family alone. If that is the case in the urban areas where higher wage rates apply how much more so is that the case in the rural areas where the wages are far lower.

The wives work as well.

Of course. The main attraction which is offered as bait to industrialists to set up industries in the border areas is that the wage rates prevailing in the rest of the country will not apply. Take the statement made by the Chairman of the Board of Trade. Dr. du Toit Viljoen, when he delivered an address on border industries in November last year to the Federated Chamber of Industries convention. He said—

Of course that is the case. This is the main bait, except for tax exemption which has not worked at all, of course. I might add that the President of the Trade Union Council of South Africa pointed out at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon very recently that in some border industries non-White workers had to spend five years in training before they reached a wage rate of 10c per hour. Let us take a week of 40 hours. That will give him R4 per week. How any family of five is going to live on R4 per week I don’t know. Perhaps the great economic genius, the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) or his colleague, the hon. member for Heilbron may be able to explain that to me. It is nonsense from beginning to end. No family of five can live on the wages paid in border industries. Those who are on a higher wage scale may be able to but not the overwhelming majority.

The hon. member for Heilbron used another extraordinary argument. He said he included in his figures people living in border reserves, like Umlazi. Incidentally, I presume, Rosslyn, which is a few miles outside Pretoria, is also now included in the number of areas where the people are employed in border industries. I have a very easy solution for the Government. If they really want to give overwhelming proof that their Bantustan policy has succeeded—the second leg is the important border industry leg; the first leg is the development of the reserves themselves—is to include Langa as a reserve and Soweto as a reserve and other Bantu townships! Then they will have solved the problem. [Interjections.] If I may say so, it is only an accident that those areas are not designated reserves. It was a purely arbitrary designation in 1913 and 1936. It so happened that Umlazi fell in one of those reserves designated in 1913 or 1936 by the Lands Act. It will be very easy to exchange an existing residential Bantu township of the enormous complex of Soweto, where over half a million people are settled, for some Black spot elsewhere in a White area and the problem will be solved. Then you will be able to say that all the people of Soweto are employed in border industries of the Witwatersrand. Because the Witwatersrand employs something like 300,000 African workers; you can multiply that by five and you won’t have to wait 50 years any more; the problem is solved! You have catered for your whole working Bantu population.

The hon. Deputy Minister has already thought of it.

I think it is a brilliant idea. And I tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration that I am giving him this idea free. I won’t even charge him the 10c per hour that gets paid to the workers in the border industries. He can have it free. That will solve his whole problem. In spite of all this development the hon. member for Heilbron talks about, has he any idea of the unemployment in the Ciskei and the Transkei? Thousands of people are unemployed in those areas.

Where do you get that from?

From an answer given to me by the hon. the Minister in this House. The latest figure I have is 6.000 unemployed in the Transkei in December and 4,000 in the Ciskei. Then I am not even talking about the millions still engaged in uneconomic farming activities. As far as I am concerned, Sir, most of those people if not unemployed, are underemployed certainly. Because they do not earn any sort of living at all. But officially 10,000 are unemployed, people who have gone back from the areas from which they have been endorsed out—from the Cape Western Area. When they get there there is nothing for them to do. This is an overwhelming problem in the reserves. People are simply endorsed out because they don’t happen to have employment in the urban areas at the moment, even if they in fact later found jobs to go to. They get sent back. Then they have to re-apply and if they are lucky to get a sympathetic commissioner in Langa or elsewhere they may then come back and take up employment. It is the most lob-sided, completely irrational way of handling the labour problem of South Africa that I have ever discovered. That is bad enough but for the hon. member for Heilbron to claim that the problem has been solved because 200,000 Bantu …

I never said that.

Very well. That great advances have been made because 200.000 Bantu are now employed and multiplied by five. 1,000,000 people are already catered for, is absolute nonsense. [Time limit.]

The hon. member says the Minister’s policy is not succeeding in reducing the number of Bantu employed in the cities. I consequently wish to avail myself of this opportunity to reply to the attack the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) made on me on 25 March when he doubted figures I had produced during the Budget debate. The hon. member feigned to be very friendly when he made that speech and I am going to be just as friendly towards him as he was towards me. I still regard him as the best actor and consequently the best speaker of the United Party. The only difficulty is that the verse he recites is usually not so good. The hon. member does much better when he recites his own verse than when he lends himself to being an instrument of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) whom I hold responsible for the wrong information given by the hon. member for Yeoville in this connection.

The hon. member’s first attack on me was on the following allegation of mine—

He made three attacks on this allegation of mine. Those attacks were made with a view to trying to keep alive the United Party lie that increasing prosperity leads to the integration of more Bantu workers…His first attack was that I had wrongly omitted, in determining the industrial production for 1960, to make allowance for the declining purchasing power of our country’s money and that the 1960 production, in terms of the value of money in 1950, which he took instead of 1951 because the former was more favourable to him, only amounted to R800,000,000 and not R1,125,000,000 and that consequently there was not a 100 per cent increase in the growth of production but only a 55 per cent increase. In so far as that is a correct calculation on the basis of the value of money it is true that our real production was not as big as statistics indicate. But I deny that it is either necessary or customary, when it comes to simple statistical comparisons, to make allowance for the fluctuations in the value of money. Even more so in view of the fact that I linked my argument with the White Paper on this year’s Budget speech in which internal production and the contributions by private factories and other economic sectors were reflected in the normal way without any allowance having been made for varying monetary values. This White Paper of the hon. the Minister who made no monetary value adjustment when he gave the national production and the contribution by industries etc. was repeatedly welcomed, praised and accepted by various United Party speakers. My figures are based on precisely the same basis as those in the White Paper which was accepted by the United Party without further ado. That is consequently not a valid point of criticism. Even if we were to accept the hon. member’s argument that we should convert the production figures into what they would have been in terms of the value of money in the earlier year, 1951, being the year you are making the comparison with, the principle I stated remains unaltered. In that case my statement would simply be that the industrial production of the Republic, in terms of the United Party’s own adjusted value of money for the period 1951 to 1960, increased by 55 per cent while the number of Bantu workers employed in industry decreased by 4.4 per cent.

The member’s second point of criticism was much more serious. He practically accused me of having carelessly falsified figures because I gave the number of Bantu workers in 1951 as 375,000 whereas there were in fact not 375,000 Bantu workers in 1951 but that the figure of 375,000 which I gave for 1951 related to all non-White workers, i.e. Coloured and Indians included. To support this attack the hon. member referred to Table L 3 of “Union Statistics over 50 years” as the source of his allegation. Table L 3 was not my source of information at all. Table L 3 gives details concerning the main groups of industries listed in Table L 1, which the hon. member did not read, and it therefore does not include all industries; it only deals with certain 21 main groups of industries. The source of my information in regard to the number of Bantu workers in 1951 was the correct Table G 7, also taken from the statistics covering the 50 years, and it deals with the opportunities of work in private industries. In 1951-2 375,462 Bantu were employed in private industries. Table L 3 which the hon. member was so anxious to use in his attack on my figures, only has one column dealing with the opportunities of employment in the 21 industries concerned. It gives the total number of workers and the White workers, and in his anxiety to find an argument the hon. member (I should have said the hon. member for Jeppes, because the hon. member for Yeoville has enough common sense not to do so) deducted the number of 168,245 Whites given for the year 1950-1 from the total figure of 543,252 workers and arrived at 375,007. Then he immediately said: “Sela, I have found an argument” without testing the validity of his argument. He then made the reckless statement across the floor of this House that private industries did not employ 375,000 Bantu in 1951. These are the statistical figures. In concluding on this point I also wish to confirm that the figure I used for 1960, namely 357,000 was, of course, also not taken from the incorrect L Table of our statistics, but from Table B 5 of the monthly bulletin of Census and Statistics which also deals with the opportunities of employment in private factories and which deals with Bantu workers as a specific category.

The hon. member’s third point of criticism which he tried hard to thrust home and about which hon. members opposite tried to laugh heartily with him, was that after 1954-5 the statistics no longer included workers employed in the workshops of garages, motor assembly plants and by traders in motor spares, because since 1954-5 those categories were given an independent head in our statistics and according to him they should therefore be added to the total number of Bantu workers for 1960. I was fully aware of this change. Statistics concerning the motor industry, trade and manufacturing, appear in the trade statistics of our census returns. Table M 21, but since Union Statistics for 1958 only showed 10,000 non-White workers of all races (Bantu and the other non-Whites) and since it also included certain trade activities which were not included previously in the industrial census, I did not use that figure because it was not of any significance. [Time limit.]

I am unimpressed by the case which has been presented to us by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). We all know, Sir, that if you work in percentages and figures and you mix them up sufficiently, it is enough to confuse almost anybody, and I must say that I do not believe anybody in this House could possibly have followed the case the hon. member was seeking to put up. But I think what is clear is that the hon. member is seeking to excuse the utter failure of the Nationalist policy to carry out the promises that they have been making for all these years in relation to the growth of the number of Africans taking part in our industries in the European areas. Quite clearly they cannot succeed in that. And people are not interested in figures, they are interested in what they see for themselves, and we can see exactly what is happening, and hon. members opposite know that our present industrial development is in a larger measure due to the increasing use of Native labour in the industries in this country, whether it be in areas which are on the borders of the reserves, or like Umlazi, areas which are now being brought onto the borders of the reserves or in any other of our industrial areas in this country. We cannot get away from the fact that the great development of this country is in a large measure dependent on the use of our Native labour, it is quite obvious that that use is going to grow with the years, it is quite obvious that in spite of making use of towns on the borders of the reserves and building industries there, unquestionably if we are going to maintain the prosperity of the great urban centres of this country, as they grow it will be essential to make use of the Native labour to an even greater extent than at the present time. And figures cannot disprove that case. The case is there for anyone to see, and I am sure that other hon. members far better qualified to deal with the figures of the hon. member, will prove him to be completely wrong. I prefer to stick to the simple facts as we all know them and see them.

Generalities.

It may be generalities, but they are actual generalities, and I prefer generalities which are true to figures which mean nothing.

I wish to come back to the point which was raised by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who unfortunately is not here at the moment, Sir, he made it perfectly clear to this House that Durban is now an area on the borders of the reserves, and obviously it will be quite easy to produce beautiful figures if all our main urban centres are turned into areas on the borders of the reserves and the Natives who are already working in the industries there are treated as Natives who are working on the borders of the reserves. It does not prove anything. One can do that for statistical purposes, but the fact of the matter is that the hon. member, while he quoted a lot of figures proved nothing, except to establish that Umlazi is now regarded as a border area. There is a difference apparently, and the hon. Minister should clear it up, because there seems to be doubt as to whether it is Umlazi which is on the borders of the reserves, or, as the hon. member put it, the Natives in Umlazi are being treated as being on that basis.

But I wish to come back to the hon. the Minister, and I am going to make an appeal to the hon. Minister here to-day that after a period of 16 years he should accept that the time has now come that this Government must be prepared to take the people of this country into its confidence and to be quite open with them as to what the plans of the Government are in respect of what areas are to be Bantustans, what Bantustans are to be created, exactly where they will be, and which areas, if there are any, which are at present Native reserves, it is intended will eventually be European areas. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is the utmost uncertainty throughout large areas of the Transvaal as to what the plans of the Government are. [Interjections.] Hon. members object to that, but I want to refer to a decision taken by the Transvaal Agricultural Union as recently as 30 October 1963, which shows how deeply concerned our farming population is in respect of this matter. I have the resolutions here in Afrikaans and they were as follows—

This is an important body, but I want to say that the doubts which gave rise to that resolution are shared by all the people of the Transvaal. Over this period of 16 years, the people have been kept largely in the dark as to what are the details of the Government’s plans. The time has now come to demand that at the very least a tentative plan with details will be made known. At the present there is a system of creeping paralysis which is changing the borders of the reserves, and only as it creeps forward do people realize that they are in danger. It is not fair to our population, and the Government should take immediate steps. I assure the hon. Minister that the gravest uncertainty exists and the Government ought to be prepared to do something about it.

The reason is that there will obviously be a number of large Bantustans. We know the main areas in the Northern Transvaal: Vendaland, Tsongaland and the area adjoining Pietersburg; we know that there is Sekukuniland, we know the area in the neighbourhood of Rustenburg, we know the area north of Pretoria, the Hammanskraal area and the area which lies between that and Sekukuniland. These are jagged pieces of land reaching out in every direction, as the hon. Minister knows. Altogether the boundaries must run into thousands of miles and along all those boundaries there are farmers who are in doubt as to what their future is. What is required is a clear statement from the Government, indicating which of the areas are to be expanded, the direction and the extent to which they are to be expanded. And then there is the further question of the large number of smaller reserves. Is the plan that these are to remain, to what extent is that to be the case, are some of them to be extended, are some of them to be consolidated or not? Sir, if this is done and we know where we stand, then people can get on with their development. The hon. Minister knows of the uncertainty which exists in the areas of the Eastern Transvaal and in the Rustenburg-Marico areas as the result of the legislation which has been passed allowing a further extension. There is a state of complete uncertainty. There is uncertainty in regard to the areas which adjoin Bechuanaland. What are the present proposals of the Government in regard to those areas? We are entitled to know these things.

There is no uncertainty in Marico.

There is no uncertainty at all.

The hon. member can get up and tell us exactly what the boundaries are, what Bantustans are projected and what their boundaries will be. I challenge him to get up in this House and tell us. I say that there are uncertainties and if the hon. Minister says there are not, he can explain to me exactly what the boundaries are and to what extent they will be extended, which areas which are now Black are to become White, if any, and which areas which are White are to become Black? Until those questions have been answered there will be a state of complete uncertainty in large areas of the Transvaal. I challenge the Minister and the hon. member, his assistant, to say if in fact there are plans, and if there are, to make them known in this House to-day. [Time limit.]

I pointed out that the hon. member for Yeoville had said that 50,000 non-Whites were employed in the motor industry in 1960. That figure is completely wrong. I have the correct figure here. Only 12,554 Bantu were employed in the motor industry in 1960-1 and 5,000 non-Whites. That is the omission from the later census. Therefore, if we add the number of Bantu employed in the motor industry to the 1960 census figure we find that my submission remains unaltered, namely, that from 1951 to 1960 South Africa’s industrial production increased by 100 per cent but by 55 per cent if you adapt it to the value of money, while the number of Bantu employed declined by 5,000. This figure isunfavourable to me because this number of Bantu workers includes those employed in border industries which are labour intensive. If you want a true picture of the position, in order to test this United Party lie, you should be able to separate the growth of production of the urban industries which are capital intensive from the border industries, in which case the figures will be much more in favour of the National Party.

The second attack of the hon. member was completely contrary to the facts. In his second attack he alleged that the figures I had given as being the total amount of capital invested in South African industries in 1948, 1960 and 1962, were really the figures in respect of the annual growth in investment in our industries for the years concerned, and that I had consequently made ridiculously wrong statements. The entire party opposite heartily laughed with him as they have been very inclined to do lately. Had I said anything like that it would have been ridiculous but I did not make that mistake. I am not the one who has made a fool of himself. It is the hon. member and his party who have made fools of themselves in this case. I clearly spoke about the total capital investments. I said I could unfortunately not get the capital investment figures for 1951. The closest figure was for 1948. The hon. member ought to know that it is a census figure. At that time the amount of capital invested in industries was R296,000,000 and the annual production was R364,000,000 or 123 per cent on the investment. Obviously when you take the production as a percentage of the investment you must only take the total investment, and not any increased investment. I then continued and said the capital invested had increased to R913,000,000 in 1960 (again a census figure) and I went further and ultimately arrived at an estimated figure of R1,083,000,000 for 1962. That is the only “estimated” figure and it is a carefully estimated figure. That is also the only figure in connection with which I had outside assistance, namely, from the Department of Economic Affairs. I then went on to say the following—

So quite obviously I was talking about the total amount of capital invested in our industries in the various years and anybody with the slightest knowledge of the matter should have known, after a rough calculation, that that was what it was all about. But the hon. member makes the ridiculous statement which he did make, in an attempt to belittle me, that the figures I gave were in respect of the annual growth in the capital invested and then he very learnedly referred to our national income and savings figures to prove that that was impossible. It is really not necessary to say that that is impossible. You ought to know that yourself. That is why my submission remains unaltered. I just want to emphasize this final submission because this is not a matter of scoring a political point over the United Party—we already have that point. Capital intensive industrial expansion offers no solution to the problem of providing the increasing Bantu population of our metropolitan areas with employment. Our metropolitan industries are expanding as a result of an intensification of capital and constitute a relative source of employment for the Bantu. If we wish to serve this country and the interests of the Bantu people we must see to it that labour intensive industries and other fields of activities are created outside our metropolitan industrial areas. That is an economic fact and a social responsibility which rests on this country. That fact and that responsibility are acknowledged within the framework of the National Party’s policy and it is one thing to accuse us of not meeting that need sufficiently but we accuse the United Party of completely closing their eyes to that need. They say we are totally wrong in trying to find a solution in this connection.

In a few minutes left to me I just want to follow on what the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories made a very important remark in a speech in which he offered constructive criticism. He said he believed this side of the House could make a success of our Bantu homelands policy provided there was a more “equitable distribution” of land in South Africa between ourselves and the Bantu.

The United Party say they reject our Bantu homelands policy, but although they reject the principle, they criticize us and say there is too little industrial development. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories raised a second point of criticism in his speech. They reject our policy of homelands but they also criticize us because there is not an “equitable distribution” of land between ourselves and the Bantu. This “equitable distribution” of land is very important because that party is beginning to echo international criticism of South Africa. The outside world is continually saving our present Bantu policy is not based on an “equitable distribution” of land between ourselves and the Bantu. Well, we take a definite stand on a historical basis and the 1936 settlement. We say that all the historical Bantu areas were allocated to the Bantu of South Africa in 1936. We maintain that the area of every national group should carry its natural increase of that group and that it has no right, when it becomes thickly populated, to say to its neighbour, whose area is not as thickly populated, “you must now give me land”. But we want to know what the United Party’s attitude is. If we carry out our Bantu homelands policy properly is their attitude that we have divided the land unfairly in South Africa? Is their demand that we give the Bantu a greater percentage of our father-land than that given under the 1936 settlement? Or do they abide absolutely by that agreement, also in the event of our developing our homelands policy?

But we reject the homelands policy.

They reject the homelands policy but at the moment we are carrying that policy out and another point of criticism of that homelands policy, vis-à-vis the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, who probably made the most responsible speech he has ever made in his career in this House, is that our policy is based on an “inequitable distribution” of land between ourselves and the Bantu. You cannot come to any other conclusion but that the United Party’s attitude is the following: If you Nationalists continue with your Bantu homelands policy, not only do we say you must see to it that there is greater industrial development in the Bantu areas, but you must also give the Bantu more land because we say you cannot make a success of that policy unless you divide the land more equitably.

That is the argument of a desperate man!

In view of the pressure the outside world exerts on South Africa I ask the United Party, even if it is to get out of a political jam, to say that they reject the Bantu homelands policy and to say they accept the 1936 settlement as absolutely final and that the Bantu have no right to further land in South Africa for their self-determination. Then we know where they stand. [Time limit.]

We have had an exhibition by two of the ablest conjurers in regard to Native Affairs on the Government side, the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). The impression which their conjuring with figures has made upon their own supporters I think could be read on their faces.

I think we must get back immediately to some hard facts. It is very, very pleasant to wander around in a dream world and solve problems which those two hon. members do and do very ably; but it does not solve those problems, and I think that we should get back to hard ground immediately. I want to get to the question of the one and only Bantustan-to-be that has been created, namely the Transkei, and consider exactly what the border industry policy has achieved for this one and only Bantustan-to-be, this showpiece of the Government. In answer to a question on the facts of the position the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs was good enough to give a full and fair answer. He told us that since the establishment of this policy two manufacturing undertakings have been established that he relates to the Transkei and Ciskei area. They are Cyril Lord’s factory, and one metal container factory. These two establishments are approximately 30 miles from the Transkei border. So if anybody says that so far as the first Bantustan is concerned, you can do this business of working in the Republic and sleeping in the Transkei …

How far are they from the Ciskei?

Not very far. I’ll give the facts. They are not far from the Ciskei; but we are discussing the Transkei at the moment. And surely, as it is the show-piece of the Government, you would expect them to establish some industries close to the 2,000,000 and more inhabitants of the Transkei who are meant to share in this prosperity and be kept working there in happiness. Now these two establishments—and I am speaking now of everything that has been established both for the Transkei and for the Ciskei—are employing at a fair estimate 1,500 Natives. In addition, there have been 15 undertakings (established before the border industry policy was introduced) which have carried out certain extensions, partly with the assistance of the Government’s special incentive measures. Those 15 existing undertakings are mostly in East London and the additional employment given by those is 1,300. So there has been a total of 2,800 new jobs on the borders of the Transkei and the Ciskei, which is the Government’s show-piece Bantustan!

When one can get lyrical, as the hon. member for Heilbron can, about this policy of theirs in the light of those figures, then I say he is living in a dream world. There are 2,800 new jobs established for the Ciskei and the Transkei under this policy since it was established, a territory which is the show-piece of that policy, and has about 2,000,000 inhabitants. No wonder the hon. the Prime Minister very rightly said recently that the border industries are not growing up fast enough to help solve the two major problems confronting the Government in its efforts to implement its policy of separate development—the expanding Black populations in the cities and mounting unemployment in the Bantu homelands. And he said among other things—

I say with great respect that these industries just have no possibility of getting off the ground. In the first place the borders themselves are most uncertain, and what manufacturer is going to establish himself there? Secondly, it is highly likely that if this policy is proceeded with much further towards independence, these will become most unsettled areas, as they were in the past. Thirdly, who will establish industries on the borders in those circumstances if, when the time comes for those areas to get their independence, they will possibly be discriminated against by the new Governments of those territories? If they were in those territories, at least they might receive the protection of the tariff walls which very possibly those territories will erect. So I think it is completely true to say that this policy has failed and will continue to fail. Some of the places the hon. member for Heilbron mentioned, which are included in these figures, are places like Rosslyn, the Natives in which I think I am correct in saying the Tomlinson Commission recommended should be removed entirely, but very correctly they adapted themselves to the facts of the situation and left them there. In regard to the other areas, most of the people he mentioned were working in factories established under the old policies of this country, including the policy of decentralization. I suggest that it is most misleading for the hon. member for Heilbron to give the country the impression that these new jobs have been created as the result of the policy of border industries.

I said this policy has failed and would continue to fail; but I want to go further and say that even if a success could be made of it, it will not prevent our having to order our affairs on the basis that we are a country with many races, and I will give him some figures.

Take the Newcastle figures.

I am quite convinced that we can solve our problems in this country if we just get on to the right road. [Interjections.] I say that even if this policy had had a moderate amount of success, which certainly cannot be claimed for it, it still just scratches the surface of the problem. Let me give hon. members a perspective. The Tomlinson Commission obtained two population projections for the end of the century, one was that there would be 16,000,000 Bantu and the other 21,000,000, and the report itself says that the second projection was the more acceptable. On that point the Natural Resources Development Council in 1962 made a population projection for the end of the century and said there would be 36,000,000 people of all races here, of whom 26,000,000 would be Bantu. In other words, 5,000.000 more than the highest figure given to the commission. The commission said that a maximum objective for the Bantu areas, including 2,000,000 earning their living outside those areas, was 10,000,000 Bantu in those reserves. The balance, therefore, is 16,000.000 who will be in the “White” areas.

Q.E.D.

Yes, I would have thought so; but it is because hon. members have forgotten their school geometry that they are still drifting around in the clouds. We therefore have the position that on the most optimistic figures of the Government there will be a minimum of 16,000,000 Bantu in the so-called White areas at the end of the century, and approximately 4,000,00 to 5,000,00 Whites. What do hon. members think they will achieve? Here they are basing their whole policy on the fact that you can treat these people as if they are foreigners. I stress—because I know this is what hon. members always throw back at us—that we will develop those reserves far more and create far more opportunities there if we allow the development to take place inside the reserves, and therefore there will be quite as many people in the reserves under our policy as under theirs [Time limit.]

I just want to give some good advice to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson), and that is that before he talks about such a vast subject, he should go back to school again for a while. When one talks about a subject like this one must first make very sure of one’s facts. But I would also advise him not to remain anchored in Cape Town but to travel a little more in his own country; then he will have the right to talk about this subject. I want to refer to two matters in connection with which the hon. member made completely erroneous statements here. Nowhere in its report did the Tomlinson Commission recommend that the developmental centre at Rosslyn should be removed. On the contrary, if the hon. member had read the report he would have seen that Rosslyn is one of the very places which was recommended as an important developmental centre. [Interjections.] But the hon. member was also wrong in his reference to border area development. He says that border area development is a total failure and that nobody is really interested in it. But if the hon. member had just taken the trouble to go and look at the influx of industrialists to the border areas he would not have made that statement. I admit that I should like to see much more rapid development but the fact remains that everybody is amazed at the rate at which the border areas have developed in the past few years. Hon. members must not forget that this development began only very recently. However, I shall come back to this matter. There are one or two other matters that I want to deal with before I proceed.

Let me deal in the first place with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). I want to say quite frankly that the hon. member made the best speech that I have heard here from the Opposition during this Session. That will give you an idea, Sir, how bad the other speeches were! When the hon. member sat down, I could not help thinking of the words of the old prophet, “My people are perishing because of ignorance”. The Opposition is perishing because of ignorance, and I want to mention a few examples to illustrate that.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories says that I must accept the responsibility for this homelands policy. He says that our conduct in connection with this matter, generally speaking, is reasonably good, but surely the hon. member knows that that is the traditional conduct of the South African nation. Both the English-speaking and the Afrikaansspeaking sections, particularly in the Eastern Cape, have always treated the Bantu very well, and not only in the Eastern Cape but also in the rest of South Africa. There have been people occasionally who have adopted the wrong attitude, who have revealed an unSouth African spirit, but that spirit is one which is foreign to this country. I want to say here very emphatically that since the days of my youth I have had an unshakable faith in this homelands solution, and there are sufficient publications of mine dating back to 1960 to prove that. The homelands policy has been the traditional policy throughout South Africa; it has been the traditional policy of practically all Governments, except the present United Party. Everybody used to talk about the homeland areas in which the Bantu would be given the right to govern himself—and nobody can deny that.

Why then does the Prime Minister call it a revolution?

I am coming to that. [Laughter.] Sir, there are a few principles which have been observed throughout our history and which stand there as a monument to us. Our attitude as a nation is to concede to the Bantu the right to manage his own affairs in his own areas. We have never deviated from that attitude. The Bantu, like any other nation in the world, has the right to develop his own spiritual possessions in his own areas and to promote his own economic development. But the United Party now come along with a new policy which is foreign to South Africa, a policy which they describe as one of justice and fairness. The United Party have laid themselves open to the charge that they are not prepared to recognize these important principles in the case of the Bantu. Take the Bantu’s spiritual possessions for example. Under the policy of the United Party, a policy which is very unfair to the Bantu, the Bantu has to throw overboard his own language, culture and spiritual possessions, and the same applies to his economic development. More than ever before the policy of the National Party in connection with homeland areas is vindicated in the eyes of the world. The whole development in the world points to one lesson—and here I need only refer to Cyprus which was held out to us by the United Party as a model. Sir, unless the policy of the National Party, the policy of separation, is applied in Cyprus there will never be peace in Cyprus. That is what we predicted at the time, and we proved to be right. Let hon. members opposite stand up to-day and say that we were wrong! Look what happened in Zanzibar. An assault was made there upon the Arabs, and the matter does not end there. The Arabs not only in Zanzibar but also in Kenya and Tanganyika are going to be wiped out systematically, and the signs are perfectly clear for everybody to read. Why? It is because the integration policy in which the United Party believe simply does not work. But it goes further than that; even the Indians are fleeing to-day. The ships to India are crowded with passengers. Why? Because they are afraid that their survival in those countries is threatened. I need only refer to the relationship which exists in Natal between the Zulus and the Indians. I could go on mentioning country after country to prove to hon. members that this racial clash goes much deeper than they realize and that there is only one solution and that is the policy of the National Party.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories says that the National Party never really knew what its policy was and that they always had to ask us what apartheid meant. They stood up here in season and out of season and wanted to know what apartheid was. Do you know why, Sir? Because they did not know what their own policy was. As soon as one starts doubting one’s own policy, one thinks that the other man is also in doubt—and that is what we still find to-day. The fact of the matter is that in 1947 the National Party appointed a commission which formulated its policy; a manifesto was then drawn up, and the 1948 election was fought on that manifesto, in which our policy was stated clearly and explicitly, with the result that every Nationalist was able to announce this policy to the whole world. Our policy was stated so clearly that in 1948 the National Party was able to defeat one of the most powerful parties in the history of South Africa. That defeat of the United Party was one of the political miracles in the last few decades.

Where does that manifesto talk about independent states?

I am coming to that. It is stated in this policy that the National Party recognize the Bantu areas as the homelands of the Bantu in which they will be given all their political rights and in which they will develop economically. [Interjections.] Hon. members have often read it out themselves and they must not come here now and try to deny it. How can the hon. member say that the Tomlinson Commission had to draw up a policy for us? It is quite correct that the commission was appointed by Dr. Jansen and that it was launched by Dr. Verwoerd, and one of the special terms of reference of the commission was to examine in what way the Bantu areas could best be developed. That was the task of the commission and the commission produced a monumental report which will go down in history. [Interjections.] The hon. member says that the commission recommended that the Bantu areas must be developed with White capital. That point has been replied to repeatedly. What the commission proposed—and I subscribed to it—was that White capital and White initiative could be used but on the condition that those industries must be handed over to the Bantu within a certain period, which was not to be longer than 15 years. But even at that time I told the commission—and I subsequently repeated that—that one would never find an industrialist who would be magnanimous enough to do that. There is not a single member on the other side who would be prepared to do so. I challenge the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to carry out the commission’s recommendations in this regard. Let him build up an industry in the Transkei and hand it over to the Bantu within 15 years; after all, he will then be carrying out the commission’s recommendations, about which he so frequently criticizes us. No, let us be perfectly clear on that point. The Tomlinson Commission did very great work and brought home to us the necessity of undertaking certain developmental projects, and many of those projects are being tackled today. Take township development. The hon. member says the commission recommended that R208,000,000 should be spent within ten years on the development of the Bantu areas and that we are not doing so. A White Paper was drawn up which deals with all these things, but the commission did not give its attention to the greatest problem which faced South Africa and that was the problem of the Bantu in the cities. It was not the task of the commission to go into it, but the Government had to give high priority to it. We came to the conclusion, after looking through South Africa, that one of the main priorities was to clean the stable which we had inherited from the United Party and to do away with the Sophiatowns and the Cook’s Bushes and the Windermeres which all came into being as a result of the United Party’s policy of integration, under which the Bantu were allowed to enter the urban areas without any restrictions. I wish the hon. member for Pinetown had the courage to visit Cook’s Bush at that time, because then he would not have said a single word here to-day. I had to come and clear up those places, and I had to do the same thing in Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth and Durban and everywhere else. [Interjection.] We realized that this would cost a great deal of money. It has cost us much more than R200,000,000, if we take into account transport facilities and everything else. Sir, this was an enormous task. Is there anybody in South Africa to-day who is not grateful to the National Government for that great work which it did for South Africa? Because that work was done not only in the interests of the Bantu but also in the interests of the Whites. But we had to take into account the economic carrying capacity of this country; we could not simply go and spend millions indiscriminately without getting any results, as the British Government did. That is why this was priority No. 1 and I think we carried it out successfully.

But in the meantime we have not been idle as far as the development of the Bantu areas is concerned. That development has been proceeded with. Do hon. members know that since 1957 up to the present moment we have spent more than R100,000,000 on the development of Bantu areas alone? We said at that time that the basis on which the Tomlinson Commission had worked in calculating the costs was too high and that most of those projects could be carried out at half the cost estimated by the commission, and we have proof to-day that we were right. I want to mention just a few things that we have done in recent years.

When we came into power in 1948 the total area under irrigation in the Bantu areas was 10,000 morgen. We are giving our attention to-day to the building of quite a few large dams which will enable us to bring a large area of land under irrigation within a year or two, but at the moment the total area under irrigation is 22,000 morgen. We have more than 14,000 settlers on that land, and they are doing very well. We are also constantly giving our attention to further development, but all this costs money; that is something which the United Party know nothing about. When we came into power there was an area of 1,350 morgen under ordinary plantations and to-day there is an area of approximately 7,000 morgen which has been placed under afforestation, and then there are also the commercial plantations which are of great value to South Africa. I wonder whether hon. members have any idea of the work that is being done in connection with afforestation in the Bantu areas? Look at the Northern Transvaal and northern Natal and the Transkei. Hon. members of the United Party have no idea how many trees we have planted there. Let me mention just one example. At the moment we are employing more than 1,000 Bantu men at just one reasonably small afforestation project in Soutpansberg. Why do hon. members opposite talk about these things in such disparaging terms?

But I go further. There is the question of the supply of water in the Bantu areas, particularly in the western areas where this was a very serious problem. When we took over there were only 2,000 boreholes. To-day there are more than 4,000. When we took over there were just a couple of hundred dams. We have now built more than 3,600 dams in the Bantu areas—and they are beautiful dams. I want to invite hon. members to come and look at those dams. [Interjections.] It cost us very little to construct those dams. [Laughter.] Hon. members are laughing but that is all they can do; that is their strongest argument. After all, when one has a weak case, one tries to cover it up by laughing. They are afraid of the success achieved by this Government. When we took over there was 3,352 miles of fencing and to-day there is more than 44,000 miles. Take roads. Just think what the state of the roads was in the Bantu areas, particularly in the Northern Transvaal and in northern Natal. Look how the Bantu Authorities are constructing roads to-day. When we took over there was 8,000 miles of roads; to-day there is more than 18,000 miles. This is a tremendous undertaking in which many Bantu are employed. When we took over there was not a single morgen under sisal. To-day there is more than 8,000 morgen under sisal, and do you know, Sir, what income the Bantu will derive from sisal this year? It will easily reach R200,000, and this is just the beginning. There are just a few areas in which these projects have reached the stage where the people can start harvesting. Just imagine what the position will be like within a few years. Sir, I could go on mentioning similar examples. One of the fine results that we have achieved is in connection with the development of townships. We have already planned 73 townships and we are now proceeding with their construction. It takes time to plan a township. Hon. members know themselves how long it takes to lay out a township. These townships are being laid out by experts and they are being planned to comply with all the modern requirements of town planning. I invite hon. members to go and look for themselves. I say again that this planning takes time. Is it right therefore to stand up here and to say that we have done nothing yet?

Then there is another aspect of this matter to which I also want to refer. One of the basic requirements of every nation in the world is the development of its human material. Look what this Government has done in this sphere for the Bantu. This Government has done more in this connection than any previous Government in South Africa. Look how many Bantu children there are at school to-day. On a percentage basis there are more Bantu children at school in South Africa than in any other part of Africa. Look at the results we are achieving. Look how many Bantu children there are in the secondary schools to-day. Look at the large number of Bantu students who are attending our Bantu universities to-day. The establishment of universities for the Bantu was a huge task, but to-day there are more than 2,000 Bantu students at university. You will remember, Sir, that when these universities were established a hullabaloo was raised here; we were told that these people should be allowed to attend the mixed universities, universities such as the Witwatersrand and Cape Town. If ever there were institutions which were a bluff as far as the Bantu were concerned it was the so-called free universities. Why? Because a bare minimum was admitted to those universities. Take the Witwatersrand, for example. I was present a few years ago when a Bantu student begged for permission to carry on with his medical studies there, but he simply could not be admitted. No, these free universities are a bluff as far as the Bantu are concerned. To-day there is an opening for Bantu students and I hope that before very long there will be sufficient facilities for the full medical training of Bantu students. We already have reasonably adequate facilities to-day for the Bantu student who wishes to receive medical training. It is no longer necessary for him to crawl on his hands and knees if he wishes to take a medical course. We hope that the position will be improved considerably in the near future. Look at the manpower that is being trained at these universities, manpower which is needed for the development of the Bantu; look at the facilities which have been created at these universities for technical training. Sir, show me any country in the world, even in the Middle East, where as much has been done for the development of its human material as the National Party has done in this country. I ask hon. members whether they think it is right to give the world this distorted picture.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories put a further question to me. He wants to know what has become of the Bantu Authorities and why we are not carrying on with the establishment of Bantu Authorities. Sir, I say again, “My nation is perishing because of ignorance”. We are continually creating new Bantu Authorities. I have a long list here of new Bantu Regional Authorities which I propose to establish. Hardly a week passes without some tribe, which formerly refused to co-operate, deciding to establish its own Bantu Authorities. These Bantu Authorities are necessary in the first place because it is a system which is understood by the Bantu; it is necessary because it gives them the necessary experience in connection with administration and in connection with government; it is virtually a school for the Bantu. It is a system which flows from their own system which they understand and appreciate and which they use for their own upliftment. What we have in these Bantu Authorities therefore is a system of adult education on a large scale. I say again that the Territorial Authorities are carrying on in all the various regions and that they are doing excellent work. I invite hon. members to come and see for themselves what Regional Authorities and Territorial Authorities and Tribal Authorities are doing for the development of their own areas. Look at the financial contributions which they themselves are making. Last year the financial contribution which they themselves made amounted to more than R2,000,000. Why does the hon. member put this question to me? Surely he is not going to tell me that he knows so little about South Africa that he does not know that this system is being proceeded with in the other areas. He knows that this system is the forerunner of the system that we have in the Transkei to-day. In the Transkei too this system produced results which enabled us to proceed with the next step.

After a revolution in Pondoland.

No. If the hon. member wants to be fair he will admit that the man who was behind the Pondoland disturbances was Mr. Patrick Duncan—Mr. Patrick Duncan and the bosom friend of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), Ahrenstein.

I have never met him.

Those are the two people who encouraged those disturbances. I admit that here and there a Chief might have misused his authority to a certain extent, but that happened in very few cases. Look at the co-operation that we have in Pondoland to-day.

Why did you not prosecute those people?

Because Proclamation 400 had not yet been promulgated and because every silly ass could do anything he liked in the Transkei. When Proclamation 400 was promulgated I had copies flown down to the Transkei; the proclamation was made known at 12 o’clock or one o’clock or two o’clock that same day Mr. Patrick Duncan and his spiritual kindred were out of the Transkei; they fled. At 12 o’clock they were still in Pondoland, and when they heard of that proclamation they cleared out, and that was the end of the troubles in Pondoland.

Did they contravene no law?

No, what they do is to push the poor Bantu into the forefront while they sit back, perfectly safe. They sit back safely with the money of the Bantu in their pockets; they are not concerned about the safety of the lives of the Bantu. That is the unfortunate position, and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories ought to know that.

Mr. Chairman, the Bantu Authorities are still serving a brilliant purpose to-day throughout South Africa; they represent a vast school for the development of the Bantu.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories made a second statement here; he said that these Bantu homelands would never be able to become economically independent. He repeats the old accusation which the outside world makes against us. I shall come to the Transkei in a moment. The hon. member also advanced a third proposition here; he said that the Transkei would never attain any form of economic independence. The fact of the matter is that the potentialities of this Bantu homeland have not been exploited at all; bearing in mind the potentialities of these homelands, one might almost say that not a spade has been turned yet with a view to their proper development. There is a great deal of work that still has to be done, and I have no doubt that once this development has taken place, these Bantu homelands will be self-sufficient to a very large extent. One can say the same thing in respect of Basutoland, and yet the British Government believes that Basutoland can stand on its own feet. One can say the same thing about Swaziland and Bechuanaland. But I want to make this statement here: We realize that with our single economic structure the weal and woe of the Bantu areas in the economic sphere will be inseparable from that of the Republic of South Africa. I have always maintained that. It is not necessary for South Africa constantly to shower gifts upon those Bantu areas. The riches of South Africa will also enrich the Bantu areas, as they are already doing today. But the pattern of development must be right. The United Party do not realize that in this respect we are setting an example to the world to-day. The pattern of development must be the right pattern, and I want to say here at once that in the economic sphere there will not be proper development if the pattern of development is not the same as the pattern followed by the Western countries. I want to mention the Transkei here by way of example. The Transkei has an income of only R3,000,000 at the present time. But can you blame those people? If South Africa had to rely for her income entirely on farming, what would South Africa’s income be?

It would be nothing.

Very low.

Precisely the same thing applies to the Transkei. Hon. members must not overlook the fact that practically the whole of their income is derived from the pockets of the farmers only. The development of the Transkei has definitely taken place on the wrong lines. What there should have been in the Transkei to-day instead of White towns is Bantu towns. I am one of those people who have always said that the Whites in the Transkei have rendered a great service to the Transkei; they rendered a great service to the Transkei in the days when the Bantu still did not have the skill and the ability to render this service themselves. But this is where the policy of the National Party comes into it. We say that the Transkei and the other Bantu areas must develop in such a way that they have their farming communities—and the farming community seldom represents more than about 25 or 30 per cent—but then you must also have your secondary industries there, and the policy of this Government is to have secondary industries in the Bantu areas; I want to make that perfectly clear. But the most important thing is the development of large cities so that tertiary industries will develop there, which will be in the hands of the Bantu. Look at the position throughout the world to-day; the vast majority of the people are engaged in tertiary industries. If a country has no tertiary industries it has no hope of development. That is why our policy is that the Bantu areas must have their own cities; they must have a farming community and they must have cities in which tertiary industries can develop. They must have their own Public Service; they must have their cafes, their own banks, their own post offices, staffed by their own people. They will then have a larger source of income, a source of economic stimulation. That is what is lacking in the Transkei to-day. It will not be possible for the Transkei to develop properly until such time as large Bantu towns come into being, together with tertiary industries and, where necessary, secondary industries. And it is in this respect that certain Whites of the Transkei are being unfair and unjust. Mr. Chairman, the present pattern is that these industries in the Bantu area are in the hands of the White community, but as soon as the Bantu himself acquires the skill to be able to render this service himself to his own community, then the White man will really be sponging upon the Bantu, and that would not be right. That is what this Government wants to avoid. That is why we are following this pattern of developing cities in the Bantu areas, and we have already achieved a great deal of success in this regard.

Where?

I want to deal for a moment with the Transkei. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories says that it is true that the Transkei has a Budget of R16,000,000 but he points out that of that R16,000,000 only R3,000,000 is derived from the Transkei itself, and he asks how the Transkei can make headway under those circumstances. Sir, the hon. member will concede that when one compares what the Transkei looked like ten years ago with what it looks like to-day one realizes that what has taken place in the Transkei is nothing less than a revolution. Look how they have improved their lands and their cattle. That is only the beginning. I readily admit that a great deal still remains to be done. The Bantu themselves have been drawn into this whole process of development. Just take the possibilities which have been created in respect of their own Public Service. To-day there are about 2,000 posts in the Transkei which are occupied by the Bantu themselves, by sons and daughters of Transkeian Bantu, by people who in many cases did not know where they could make a living and who even went to seek employment in the Protectorates. Those people are coming back to-day to the Transkei to serve their own people. As the Transkei develops more and more such posts will be created in the Transkei, of course, and as and when White officials are withdrawn many more senior posts, which will then become vacant, will be filled by Bantu. After all, as Dr. Van Eck so aptly remarked—a statement which was quoted here by one of my hon. friends opposite in an attempt to substantiate his own distorted point of view—development results in further development, and if this pattern is followed that we are following in the Transkei, the Transkei is going to become one of the rich areas of South Africa. But I want to say at once that the task of seeing to it that tertiary industries are developed for the benefit of their own people is one which rests on the shoulders of the Transkeian Government. I accept that it may still take quite a few years before that stage is reached. I am one of those who said that I foresaw that Whites would still remain in the Transkei for generations to come, and I repeat that here. But once the Bantu themselves have acquired the necessary knowledge and skill, it will be the duty of the White man to ensure that the Bantu is given his birthright in his own homeland. That is the policy of the Government in respect of the Bantu homelands, and if we work along those lines then the Bantu areas will have something for which Europe is yearning to-day and which is already in operation there to a certain extent; in other words, there will be a ready-made Common Market for the Bantu areas for their own enrichment. And hon. members must not forget that prosperity in the Republic of South Africa also brings prosperity to the Bantu areas and that the troubles of the Bantu areas are also the troubles of the Republic of South Africa, because we are not going to leave those people in the lurch. That has always been the attitude of this side of the House.

The hon. member also raised a further question; he asked what the Government had done for the Whites of the Transkei. Sir, the hon. member is not a very good representative of the Whites in the Transkei. If they had listened to his scaremongering, there would not have been a single White man in the Transkei to-day, but they showed a little more courage than that; he frightened them to such an extent that some of them lost their heads and asked me whether I thought they would be safe there for another week. Surely, Mr. Chairman, one should not frighten one’s constituents in this way. Even if one becomes scared oneself one should at least pretend not to be afraid.

Tell us something about the Heckroodt Commission and forget about the scaremongering.

I am coming to that. When I said at the time that the Whites in the Transkei were now going to become rich, hon. members of the Opposition laughed at me. What is happening today? The Whites in the Transkei are becoming very wealthy. I know, Sir, that wild horses could not drag the hon. member for Transkeian Territories out of the Transkei. There is prosperity in the Transkei to-day such as it has never experienced before. The Government made the promise that it was not going to leave the Whites in the Transkei in the lurch, and it proceeded to appoint the Heckroodt Commission which went into this whole matter. The Heckroodt Commission duly brought out its report, and I announced in the Transkei that in principle the Government was accepting the main principles contained in the report of the Heckroodt Commission. If any Whites in the Transkei suffer any damage as a direct result of the granting of self-government to the Transkei, the Government will not leave them in the lurch. The Government has promised to table a White Paper on this matter during the present Session. I just want to say that that White Paper is already before the Cabinet and I expect it to be tabled any day now.

Just do not get the Minister of Information to draw it up.

That White Paper will be tabled, and all doubts will then be removed. This Government will not leave the Whites of the Transkei in the lurch. But I want to mention another example here. There were quite a few people in Umtata who were very anxious to sell their houses to me; they wanted to leave Umtata. I bought those houses; and what is happening to-day? I do not know whether one of those people left Umtata. I am informed that some of them are building new houses. They want to share in the prosperity there. How can the hon. member bring himself to level the reproach against the Government, which treats its people so well, that it is leaving them in the lurch? We are not doing what England did in Kenya. But even if it so happens that the Whites have to leave the Transkei in time to come, they have this assurance that the Government will help them. This Government has never left its sons and daughters in the lurch.

The hon. member also asked what the position was in connection with the influx of Bantu to the Western Cape and other White areas. That is against Government policy, of course. This Government has always said that it will see to it that the development of this country does not come to a standstill; that it will see to it that the development in the Western Cape continues and that there is no dislocation. This promise was made by the Prime Minister; it was made by me and by every Minister who spoke on this subject. When development takes place in a White area steps are taken to ensure that that development does not come to a standstill. But there has now been a change in the attitude of the Bantu as a result of the policy of the National Party. The Bantu realizes to-day that he is here in a temporary capacity and that his home is in the Transkei or the Ciskei if he is a Xhosa, or that his home is in Zululand if he is a Zulu. This change in the attitude of the Bantu means a great deal to our people; it forms the basis of co-operation, a fact which hon. members on the other side do not always realize.

I come now to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). The hon. member referred here to the reference made by the hon. the Prime Minister in the course of his speech to a revolutionary development that was taking place here. That is not quite correct. What the hon. the Prime Minister said that what was actually taking place in South Africa today was in the nature of a revolutionary development. But when we look at what is happening in South Africa to-day, when we look at the development of the Bantu areas, when we look at the development over the whole of South Africa, is it not a fact that we are living in a revolutionary period? What is happening here to-day is much more revolutionary than the industrial revolution which took place in England. It must not be forgotten that hitherto only promises have been made to the Bantu by previous Governments; this Government now comes along and carries out those promises; it does not make promises only. This is a revolutionary step.

To carry out a promise?

That is why we have this new attitude to-day on the part of the Bantu. This is the first Government which has carried out its promises to the Bantu. Sir, you can go throughout the length and breadth of the country and talk to the Bantu and they will all tell you the same thing. This is the first Government which has proved that it does not begrudge the Bantu a place in the sun in South Africa. I receive letters to this effect every day. I admit immediately that this is a revolutionary development. It is because we accept the full implications of apartheid that this development is taking place, and this is where I have a serious quarrel with the United Party; the United Party accepts integration but it refuses to accept the full implications of integration, and in that connection the United Party stands charged before the tribunal of its conscience and before the tribunal of world opinion. While this Government accepts the full implications of apartheid, the United Party refuses to accept the full implications of integration; in other words, we are prepared to give to the Bantu in his own areas what we demand for ourselves in our area, and we have no doubt that the Bantu will make a success of self-government. Sir, what has taken place in South Africa is indeed something revolutionary.

How can it be traditional and at the same time revolutionary?

If the hon. member had known the history of this policy he would not have asked that question, because the policy of apartheid is the traditional policy of South Africa; it is the policy which has been followed throughout the history of South Africa, but what is revolutionary is the fact that to-day the policy of separate development is being implemented. We are proving to the Bantu that we do not merely make promises but that we also come forward with deeds. What is happening to-day is traditional but at the same time revolutionary. Let me just remind the hon. member of the history of England. Traditionally the British nation was a nation of traders, but at a certain stage a revolutionary development took place in the economy of England. The traditional policy underwent a revolutionary development, and the same thing has happened in connection with the policy of apartheid. We are now giving effect to a policy which over the decades has taken shape in the heart and soul of the people of South Africa, not only in the heart and soul of the Afrikaans-speaking section only but in the heart and soul of the English-speaking section. Let me repeat what I have said here before: On one occasion when I walked into the library here to see who the first writers were on the subject of apartheid, I could not find a single Afrikaans name there; the first writers on this subject were all Englishmen. The policy of apartheid was really devised by them. The policy of apartheid has taken shape in the heart and soul of the entire nation.

The hon. member comes here and says that there are no opportunities for the Bantu in Hammarsdale. Sir, I ask the hon. member: Is that fair?

I say there are no tertiary industries.

I ask the hon. member whether that is fair. Mr. Chairman, “my nation is perishing because of ignorance”! If the hon. member had only visited Hammarsdale …

I was there two weeks ago.

That may be so, but in that case the hon. member learnt nothing there, because if he had learned anything at all there he would have known that we are still struggling to-day to clear up the mess that we inherited under the policy of the United Party. There are numbers of cases where the Bantu were given ownership rights.

On which side of the border?

We have been struggling for the past year or two to unravel the situation there in such a way that no injustice will be done to anybody.

Is it on the other side of the railway line?

In the Bantu area. We have to unravel the whole thing because some of those people, as I have said, were granted ownership rights. Unfortunately it takes a tremendous amount of time. We do not want to do an injustice to anybody. To-day the problem has almost been solved. The town has already been planned and the developmental work will be started one of these days.

But there is no town there today.

No, but a start will be made with the developmental work one of these days; the town has already been planned. This only goes to show how unfair the hon. member is. He knows that a start will soon be made, but he chooses a place where we are faced with problems which are really the outcome of his own party’s policy.

Sir, hon. members opposite sneer when we talk about Umlazi as a fine example of a Bantu township which is near to a White area. But, Mr. Chairman, it has always been our policy to develop Bantu townships which are situated close to White towns, particularly White industrial towns …

Will Umlazi become independent?

If the Zulus are given self-government, Umlazi will be included. I just want to say this: It was I who convened the first meeting of industrialists in South Africa to discuss border area development. They told me that there was no hope of carrying out that policy. I then said to them, “Let us first look at the map”. I pointed out Umlazi and other places to them. When I finished the chairman stood up and said, “This has come as a surprise to us; we thought that all these industries would be established somewhere in Dark Africa where there are no railway facilities, no water and no electricity.” They asked me whether I was sure that it was the Government’s policy to establish industries in those areas. I then referred them to the report of the Tomlinson Commission and pointed out that these recommendations were contained in that report. They were surprised to hear this; they said that they knew nothing about it. Why did they know nothing about it? Because they had only read the English language Press. [Interjections.] No, I am not blaming the English language Press. The English language Press obtains its news from the United Party. It was the United Party who had told these people that these places would be established somewhere in Dark Africa. I was also the person who called the first meeting of economists to discuss this matter. When we discussed this matter one economist after another stood up and said that this thing would never work. One man, whose name I could mention if it is necessary to do so, said, “Let us first go into this matter; I think it is going to work excellently.” Subsequently they again came together, together with Dr. Diederichs and myself, and again considered this matter. To-day most economists in South Africa are highly enthusiastic about this plan. There is no doubt that the industrialists are interested.

The hon. member asked me to mention a few examples; he said that he wanted examples, not just generalities. The example which he asked me not to mention is the Good Hope factory near to King William’s Town. That factory was established—I honestly admit it—by the United Party but it was the National Party who saved it. If the National Party Government had not come into power I doubt whether the Good Hope textile factory would still have been in existence to-day.

How did you save it?

By applying this fine National Party policy. More than 3,000 Bantu are employed in that factory at the present time. Look at the town which has sprung up there; look at the tertiary industries which they have built up there. Every policeman there is a Bantu; the post office clerks are Bantu; the building contractors there have become well-off. The quality of their work is such that their services could be used anywhere.

Reference has already been made here to Rosslyn. The hon. member says that he visited Rosslyn and found that there was no railway line. Mr. Chairman, the railway line runs alongside the factory. He says that there is no power station. Sir, one of the biggest power stations in the southern hemisphere is situated a little distance away from Rosslyn. To my great surprise the hon. the Leader of the Opposition then stood up and said that his objection was that Rosslyn could not really be regarded as a border area because it was too close to Pretoria; that this was really development in a White area, and to that he had no objection.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I am pointing out how hon. members opposite contradict one another because they are “perishing because of ignorance”. Look at the development that is taking place at Rosslyn this year. I invite hon. members to go and visit the S.A. Paper and Pulp factory at Tugela. Then we have this development at Verulam, at Umkomaas, at Ladysmith, at Cato Ridge, at Hammarsdale, at Newcastle. Have hon. members taken the trouble to go and look at the development at Newcastle?

I was there; it is terrible.

There is fine development taking place at Newcastle. Then we have the development at Estcourt; we have the development at East London. East London was a dead city, but go and look at it to-day. East London is alive to-day and more factories are still being established there.

Will all these places become Bantustans?

Not East London, but these Bantu towns are in the Bantu areas.

What about Newcastle and those other places?

Duckspond is in a Bantu area. Then there is the large factory which is being established close to Nelspruit; there is the development at Phalaborwar.

What about Kokstad?

Kokstad will also get its chance. Sir, I have now given sufficient examples of the development that is taking place at the present time. I can tell hon. members how many Bantu have already been employed at these various places. They will be astonished to see how these places have developed. We always said that in order to convert the subsistence economy of the Bantu areas into a diversified economy there was one important thing that had to be done and that was to create points of growth; that points of growth had to be created everywhere, because development promotes development. I do not regard this so much as border area development; it is really a spreading of industry over the whole country; it is a decentralization of industries.

We have nothing against that.

Hon. members opposite say that we have done nothing, but look at the points of growth which have been created everywhere; look at the rate at which development is taking place. This is a process which has been taking place over the past three years. Look how my five-year plan is making headway; look how the Bantu are being fitted in. The hon. member for Heilbron has mentioned the large number of Bantu who have already been employed. I am not talking about border industries now, but I can tell hon. members that over the past two years 120,000 have been given employment under my five-year project and other projects that we have tackled. Hon. members opposite will not believe me but they can come and look for themselves.

In these circumstances is it right for hon. members opposite to say that we have done nothing? I do not blame the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). He is young; he will still learn. But the hon. member for Houghton ought to know better. She ought to defend South Africa’s name. The hon. member for Houghton is really the liaison officer for people who have one object only and that is to besmirch South Africa as much as possible.

Reply to my argument and cut out that nonsense.

That is their policy against South Africa. I have no objection to criticism, and I say again that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories put forward some good criticism here. Let us criticize but do not let us represent things in the wrong light. Let us at least recognize what the Government has already done. Mr. Chairman, I think I have now replied to more or less all the points which have been raised here.

You have not replied to my argument at all.

Will the hon. the Minister please deal with the position of Kokstad, Queenstown, Port Shepstone and Harding.

I think I have replied to the hon. member in that connection previously. My reply is that Matanzima has never made such a request to us. I did see a Press report along those lines, but I cannot be expected to repudiate everything that appears in the Press. I have said before that the borders of the Transkei have already been demarcated; they have been laid down by law. There is no intention to incorporate those White areas. If incorrect statements appear in the Press, I cannot be expected to repudiate every one of them.

Is Matanzima entirely wrong in making that statement?

If he made the statement that those White areas are going to be incorporated then it is incorrect. He knows what the borders of the Transkei are. He made no such representations to me. Let us be perfectly clear on that point therefore. I had this experience just the other day again at a large meeting where the Bantu said to me, “We have learnt by this time to believe very few statements which appear in the English language Press”. It is very unfortunate that that should be so, but that is the position.

I want to conclude on this note: I contend that the Bantu are very favourably disposed to-day towards the policy of the National Party. One finds evidence of that wherever one goes. I admit that there are certain people who are not in favour of it but those people are mostly the victims of propaganda made by certain Whites. They constitute a very small percentage, however. There is no doubt that we are getting a degree of co-operation to-day that we never had in the past, particularly in connection with the development of the Bantu areas, a development which is taking place at an ever-increasing tempo. Hon. members must remember that the planning which has to precede this development, takes a long time. We have now got into our stride, and the Bantu realize what is being done for them in connection with the development of their own areas, a development which is in the interests not only of the Bantu but in the interests of the whole Republic of South Africa.

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

Afternoon Sitting

The hon. the Minister started his speech by complimenting me on my criticism. I must hate deserved that compliment because the Minister certainly did not answer the criticism which I offered. As to his remarks about my being a good or bad member to represent the White people, I think he should leave that to the White people in the Transkei to decide for themselves. If he wants my advice, he and the Nationalist Party should be as wise as they were in the last election and leave me alone in the next election.

The Minister said he had given the assurance when he was at Umtata that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the Heckroodt Commission with regard to the White people. I take it that includes the Coloured people because the commission also dealt with the Coloured people, and that the Government has accepted those recommendations as far as the Coloured people are concerned as well. What I cannot understand is this: If the Government is accepting the recommendations of that commission why cannot the recommendations of that commission be tabled? Why cannot we see what the recommendations are? Why cannot the White Paper be tabled? Why cannot we see what the Government has decided to do? If it has made up its mind why is there this delay?

I asked the Minister at the beginning of the Session when we were going to get the recommendations of that commission and when he was going to lay a White Paper on the Table and he said “shortly”. Yet he says the same thing to-day. We are nearly at the end of the Session; it is nearly four months since it started. The Minister of Lands even gave us the closing date of the Session this morning. What I suspect is that we will get it on the last day of the Session so that we cannot criticize it. Is that the Minister’s plan? If the Minister does not want to lay a White Paper on the Table why does he not tell us in this debate what the recommendations are? The Minister said they had undertaken not to leave us in the lurch and that they would compensate those people who could prove that they had suffered directly because of the Government’s policy. But how do you prove that?

Directly.

Yes, directly. How do you prove that you have suffered directly? The Minister said he had bought houses in Umtata. He said the people offered the houses. Of course, they offered their houses. When the Minister said he wanted to buy houses in Umtata 99 were offered. I suppose more were offered in the end because the only way people could dispose of their property was to sell to the Government. For his information I can tell the hon. the Minister that the information he gets from his officials at Umtata is not always correct. A large number of those who sold their houses have left Umtata. Some of the travellers who operated from Umtata now operate from East London because their firms refuse to invest money in houses in Umtata. The Government has certainly boosted Umtata by bringing in all those Government officials but what about the villages and the trading stations? How many properties are being sold in the villages? How many trading stations have been sold? I asked the Minister yesterday how many trading stations had been bought through the Government agency over the last five years but I have not heard a word from him on that.

It is not true that the White people of the Transkei are closing their businesses because of Government policy. The White traders are making money as they always have. I have never disputed that fact, Sir. But my criticism is this that properties have dropped in value because they cannot sell their properties. People are not prepared to buy. It would be quite easy for this Government to say they will buy the properties of all the White people in the Transkei. If the Government does not want to do a Kenya on us they must compensate us and treat us the way they have treated the farmers and pay us on the same basis. The farmers rushed to the Government to sell when the Government wanted land for the Bantustans because of the prices the Government paid. If the Government were to treat the traders in those areas and the other White people in the villages the same way those people would probably offer their properties. And the Government can easily do that. They can use some of the R40,000,000 they found the second time by mistake and the public would not even know they had spent it; the Government could use that money to compensate us. But of course they cannot afford to do that because they cannot afford to have the White people leave the Transkei and the Minister knows it. The Minister’s difficulty is to find out how he can keep us there and give us security at the same time. That is what we are interested in and that is why we are interested to know what the recommendations of the Heckroodt Commission are.

The Minister said he had not had any request from the Government of the Transkei for the inclusion of new areas in its zone. The Minister must know that a claim was made for additional areas in the manifesto of the Chief Minister. The Minister will also remember that when the constitution of the Transkei was passed we asked him where the final boundaries were going to be. We have not yet been told. The Minister then said they would negotiate with the Government of the Transkei. Have there been any further negotiations as to where the final boundaries of the Transkei are going to be? I also want to know about the zoning of the European towns and villages. A committee has now been appointed to go into the question of zoning. It is about time, Sir, because there is a great deal of confusion in the Transkei about this. The Minister will know—he acts as the Minister applying the Group Areas Act in the Transkei—that there was trouble about an African doctor who moved into a White area in Umtata. He is living there, contrary to the law, but nothing is done about it and an inquiry has been held by the magistrate of Umtata. What has happened about that inquiry? It is of interest to people in the Transkei, especially to those in Umtata, to know which areas are going to be zoned for Bantu occupation.

Officials and two White residents of the Transkei were appointed to the committee but what about the Bantu residents? I would have thought that they would have had a representative of the Government of the Transkei on that committee as well, because, after all, it is of vital interest to get the approval of the Transkeian Government as well when it came to the question of zoning. They are the people most interested.

Has this Government got a representative on that committee.

Yes.

Then the Transkei Government also has.

I cannot understand the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument. I ask: Is the Government of the Transkei represented?

I asked whether this Government had representations?

This Government has, but what about the Government of the Transkei?

Then the Transkei Government also has.

How can the Deputy Minister argue like that? Once an area is zoned for Bantu occupation it will fall under the Government of the Transkei. Surely the Government of the Transkei is vitally interested in how that zoning is done. The Government of the Transkei should also be represented on that committee.

They are.

The hon. Minister said that it is the policy of this Government to allow White initiative and capital into the reserves and he challenged me and said: Why did I not start an industry in the Transkei? Why did some other White people, members of the United Party not go and start industries in the Transkei? But, Sir, one man did want to start an industry in the Transkei, and I do not think he is a United Party supporter, but he is a South African with vast interests throughout the world. Anton Rupert wanted to start an industry in the Transkei and this Government refused him and did not allow him to do so. Anton Rupert’s point was that if he could start an industry in Malaya, why could he not start an industry in the Transkei? He is quite right. There was an example of a man who was prepared to start an industry in the Transkei …

Not on the conditions of the Tomlinson Report.

That was the whole point. “Not under the conditions of the Tomlinson Report”. Under the conditions of the Tomlinson Report he could have started his industry. He could not have started an industry under the conditions laid down in the White Paper of the Government, because when the Tomlinson Commission’s Report was received, this Government issued a White Paper and it said this—

[Time limit.]

As you know Sir, my time is limited and I should like to talk about the number of Bantu in the White areas. However, I just want to say something in regard to the final point raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) in connection with which he and I actually conducted an argument across the floor of the House, contrary to the Rules of the House. Then I also want to deal, at a later stage, with a few other points that have been raised. The hon. member asked whether the Transkeian Government was represented on the commission appointed by the hon. the Minister to go into the question of the zoning of the towns situated in the White spots in the Transkei. The hon. member asked why the Transkeian Government was not represented on that commission. I then asked the hon. member by way of interjection whether the Republican Government was represented on that commission. Then he said “yes”. Very well. He probably said “yes” in view of the people serving on that commission. Officials of our Department serve on that commission. The chairman of that commission is the deputy Secretary of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. Smuts of Pretoria. I then said: If you regard those officials of this Government as representatives of the Government of the Republic, then the Government of the Transkei is also represented on that commission because the hon. member ought to know that the Secretary of the Interior of the Transkei serves on that commission. That was what the hon. member could not understand. The hon. member has just been complimented on the good speech he made earlier on but I think his last speech was an anticlimax. The hon. member said we could not afford to remove the Whites from the Transkei and he wanted to know what the delay was in deciding on the report of the Heckroodt Commission, as he put it. The Minister replied to that but I just want to tell the hon. member that we never said, as the hon. member tried to imply with that remark of his, we were immediately going to remove all the Whites from the Transkei.

I did not say that.

We never said that but the hon. member implies that we are immediately going to remove all the Whites from the Transkei. Surely we never said that. We said the Whites had a task to perform there; we have sent White officials there as the hon. member ought to know. But we also know of the scare stories hon. members opposite spread amongst the Whites in the Transkei a year or two ago by saying to them: “You are really in a precarious position, you have to leave the ship like rats; you must force the Republican Government to promise to compensate you” and that sort of thing, as the hon. member again did a moment ago when he said that the surplus was more than sufficient to buy out everybody. That sort of thing makes no impression on the people in the Transkei and the Whites who are still in the Transkei and who realize that the Transkei is entering a period of prosperity, those people whom the United Party frightened at the time and who were perhaps frightened and wanted to leave, no longer want to leave the Transkei to-day. As the hon. the Minister said they want to remain there longer so as to share in the prosperity. Hon. members of this House ought to know that the Government’s attitude towards the Whites in the Transkei has always been that they could not remain in the Transkei forever but that they will gradually have to leave. But the hon. member need not suggest that our attitude has ever been that they must hurriedly be kicked out. The Government will fulfil its obligations towards those Whites.

I want to point out a few aspects in connection with the number of Bantu in the White areas. The question is whether the number of Bantu in the White areas is being properly controlled, yes or no. It is not a question of a definite number, 10,000 more, 11,000 more, 30,000 more. The question is whether the position is under control, yes or no. All these years we have said that as far as the specific number was concerned it was possible that the number of the White areas might even increase and that the tide might turn some time in the future, then the numbers would be drastically reduced. We have always said that it was possible that the numbers in the White areas would increase but what hon. members opposite must realize is that the increase is not taking place in terms of their policy, not on the basis of integration. If there is an increase it takes place in terms of the steps we are taking, in terms of influx control, in terms of labour bureau regulations, in terms of service contract regulations, in terms of all the forms of control which we are applying according to our policy of separate development. Let us look at the real numbers which are of importance. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) previously, and again to-day, dealt with the question of the natural increase amongst the Bantu in the White areas and he compared that with various important components of our national development, or shall I say, with the development of our society. He compared it with the natural increase in general; he compared it with the production of the country, he compared it with the capital invested, etc. He again proved the correctness of his figures to-day. I do not want to go into that aspect. To supplement what the hon. member for Kempton Park has said I want to point out a few other aspects, similarly to prove, but from another angle, that the presence of the number of Bantu and also the increase in the number of Bantu in the White areas are under control. I want to prove that the control we exercise has been and still is reasonably effective. I shall also deal with the position in the Western Cape Province although I shall probably not be able to do so to-day in the short time at my disposal. It is mainly a question of relativity. It is not a question of definite numbers. I want to give an example. Let us see what the growth rate of the Bantu in the White areas has been. I shall then divide the White areas into two groups, Sir. I shall give you the general growth rate in the White areas, urban and otherwise. Since 1936 to 1946 the tempo of growth was 2.3 per cent per annum. From 1946 to 1951, five years, the tempo of growth was 2.8 per cent per annum. In other words it had gone up; that pleases the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) because that means more Bantu. During the following nine years, a much longer period, from 1951 to 1960 the growth rate went down from 2.8 per cent to 2.4 per cent per annum.

But there were 1,000,000 more Bantu.

You see, Sir, the hon. member only counts heads. He only counts the number of Bantu heads. He does not consider how fast or slow that increase has been; he does not consider all the factors such as production, productivity, how the number of Whites have grown and similar factors. He only grabs at the one factor and runs away with it. But that will not bring him anywhere. Let me analyse it further. Let me deal with the position in the urban areas where the question is much more urgent. The tempo of growth in the urban areas has even been more favourable according to our yardstick. During the years from 1936 to 1946 the tempo at which the number of Bantu increased was 4.1 per cent per annum; during the following five years, from 1946 to 1951, it was 5.1 per cent. In other words it had increased. During the subsequent nine years the growth rate again went down to 4.2 per cent. In other words, it was only .1 per cent higher than the growth rate during the period 1936 to 1946. During the nine years from 1951 to 1960 there was, therefore, not only a decline in the tempo of growth in the number of Bantu in the White areas to the level of the previous five years, but it declined further to the second previous period, namely, the ten years from 1936 to 1946. If that does not prove that the number of Bantu in the White areas has been properly controlled, I do not know what it does prove. [Time limit.]

In regard to the Zoning Commission I know that Mr. Midgley has been appointed a member of the commission, but I pointed out too that the Government of the Republic is not only represented by officials there, but there are also representatives of the White people on that commission, and one would have thought that instead of putting a White official there to represent the Transkei Government they would have appointed a Bantu representative on that commission, a representative of the people of the Transkei. I want to ask the hon. Minister where the commission is going to start its work? Are they going to deal with all the villages now, or is it just going to be Umtata?

That is why you have the commission.

Is it going to cover all the villages, or only Umtata? The hon. Deputy Minister says that although he admits that there is an influx of Natives, that the Natives are coming in in increasing numbers into the White areas, he supports the point made by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). The hon. member for Kempton Park, as I understood him, said that there had been a decrease of 4 per cent in the number of Bantu employed in industry.

In a certain period.

In a certain period, yes, but in a period when a million additional Bantu flocked into the European areas. Now I want to ask him what the million people are doing? Are they unemployed? If there is a decrease of 4 per cent in industry, what are the 1,000,000 Bantu doing? The hon. Minister says that because the Bantu are coming into the urban areas now under control, it is a good thing. He mentioned influx control, and the various regulations they have. I would like to point out that every Bantu who comes into the White area is taking part in integration. It is all integration! I should like to ask him why it is such a good thing now? Who introduced influx control? The United Party was responsible for influx control. The United Party controlled the influx of Bantu into these areas. It is one of the criticisms against us by the Progressives. This hon. Minister must not claim any credit for the fact that the Bantu are now coming in under control. This control was introduced before the present Government took over. I would like to refer again to the Western Province figures. The hon. Minister said that the Natives would be removed gradually. But I want to ask him this: Why is it, if the whole policy is that the Bantu must be removed from the Western Province, that the Bantu in fact are coming in in increasing numbers? Those figures given by the hon. Deputy Minister mean nothing when applied to the Western Province.

I am going to deal with that.

Let him just answer this: In 1963, through the Government Bureaux 666 Bantu came into the Western Province, in 1962, 892 and 3,864 came in in 1963 and in the first three months of this year 3,511 have come in. Now surely the percentage increase of Bantu in the Western Province is above normal! And this is an area where it is the Government’s policy to remove them. Or is the Government not going to carry out that policy any more? Has the Government now thrown up its hands?

The hon. Minister said that the traditional way of governing the Bantu is through Bantu Authorities. He asked whether I did not know what was happening and he strung out a number of figures of tribal authorities that have been established. My question to him was about Territorial Authorities. How many Territorial Authorities have been established? It is all right establishing the lower authorities. If the Bantu are so keen on taking over this policy of authorities, why is there such a delay in the establishment of Territorial Authorities? Why is it that they are having trouble in Zululand? This is proof that the Bantu are not so keen on Bantu Authorities. And to get back to Pondoland, the hon. Minister said that the trouble in Pondoland was caused by Mr. Patrick Duncan and Mr. Ohrenstein. But I would like to remind the hon. Minister that he appointed a commission to go into the question of the trouble in Pondoland. And what did the Van Heerden Commission find? They found that the hostility of the Bantu to Bantu Authorities was because of corruption of the chiefs. That is what they found. It was not because of Mr. Patrick Duncan and Mr. Ohrenstein. As far as I can remember those gentlemen were not mentioned in the commission’s report. And if the Government knew what the trouble was, why was that commission appointed? If the trouble was caused by Mr. Patrick Duncan and Mr. Ohrenstein, and if all the trouble faded away once Proclamation 400 was brought into being, why was the Van Heerden Commission appointed to go into the question of the troubles in Pondoland?

The hon. Minister said that the policy of separate Bantustans and independence has always been the policy of the Government, at any rate since 1947 when the Sauer Committee was appointed to go into the question. If that is so, why is it that the Tomlinson Commission had to go especially into the question as to whether the policy of the country should be one of separate development or of integration? Why did they concern themselves with that particular question if it was the decided policy of the Government to follow a policy of separate development, of complete apartheid? Surely when the Government appointed the commission, the terms of that commission were for it to consider bringing about the necessary economic structure in the reserves, in the areas which were to become separate Bantustans.

The hon. Minister also told us about the achievements of the Government and the progress in the development of the reserves and the border areas. He told us about the number of miles of roads that had been completed—it works out at about 700 miles a year—of the dams completed, and that sort of thing. I want to tell the hon. Minister this, that no Government is so bad that it cannot do something, and surely in a period of 16 years something should have been done. The Minister seems to be proud of the fact that they have done something in 16 years. He compares the country now with what it was in 1948. But surely under the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission so much more should have been done. That is our complaint. I ask him again about the border areas. The hon. Minister spoke about Hammarsdale and Pretoria, but he avoided the main question we asked him. We asked him to deal particularly with the Transkei because of the development that has taken place there. What has he told us about the border areas around the Transkei? He did not mention it. When I asked him what industries he was starting at Kokstad, he said that they would get their turn. But the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs in reply to a question by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) said that two industries had been started in Kokstad under the border industries’ scheme, and one at Harding. I want to know what those industries are? Surely the hon. Minister should know what developments are taking place. I do not know of these industries, and I am sure the hon. Minister does not know about them. That is why he did not answer the question. The point we make is that the development is not taking place that should take place to absorb the people in that area. If the Government is sincere in its policy, it has to establish industries on the borders of the Transkei. That is why the hon. Minister was so right when as a member of the Tomlinson Commission he recommended that industries should be established in Umtata. There was the obvious place to establish them—in the White area in Umtata, where you have all the labour you need around you, close by. But the only industry is an industry 35 miles away from the borders. And we say that while the Bantu of the Transkei have to go out, as they had to go out in ever-increasing numbers, there is bound to be trouble between the Republican Government and the Government of the Transkei. Because once the subjects of that Government come into the area of the Republic, they come under the laws that apply in the urban areas of the Republic, and we know that those laws are restrictive. I do not necessarily blame the Government for all the laws. Some of the laws are necessary. Influx control for instance is necessary. [Time limit.]

I want to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that there is an adage which says Rome was not built in one day. It is hardly two years ago that we started the border industrial development of the Ciskei and the hon. member suggests that everything should have been finished and done with.

But you have been in power for 16 years.

That hon. member is talking in his sleep. He ought to know, but he does not know because he uses the crumbs which fall from the lips of hon. speakers in this debate, that we did not start with the border industrial development 16 years ago. That is the biggest nonsense! This Government came into power 16 years ago; it is a pity it did not come into power 50 years ago. The point is this that we started with the border industrial development of the Ciskei hardly two years ago and I maintain that what we have achieved has been phenomenal, relatively speaking. Hon. members must only exercise some patience. They will still see much more happening.

I hope so.

The hon. member says he hopes so. He does not hope that. I referred a moment ago to the numbers in the White areas and I have disposed of the first point, namely, the growth rate.

I want to refer to something else; a second approach to the number of Bantu in the White areas is this: What is the ratio between White workers and Bantu workers in the entire field of employment in the White areas in South Africa? In 1954-5 193 Bantu were employed for every 100 White workers in the entire industrial field in South Africa. In 1957 the number had dropped to 180 for every 100 White workers.

In agriculture?

Sir, seeing that my time is so limited, the hon. gentleman should show me the courtesy of allowing me to make my speech. That hon. member has unlimited time, except in committee, and he ought to give me a chance now. In 1955 there were 193 Bantu for every 100 Whites; in 1957 there were 180 Bantu for every 100 Whites, in 1959 (another drop) there were 172 Bantu for every 100 Whites, it dropped further in 1961 to 169 Bantu for every 100 Whites, and the latest figure I could get was for March 1963, when it was 168 Bantu for every 100 Whites. I want to know whether that ratio does not show an improvement in the ratio between Whites and Bantu in industries in South Africa. And does that not prove that control has been exercised over the number of Bantu working in the White areas and working in industry and other employment.

It does not prove anything?

It does not prove anything to the hon. member. Only one thing proves anything to him and that is his own attitude. If anything is said in support of his own attitude then it is proof, but when it proves our attitude it is not proof. I want to tell the hon. member that we realize that many factors have contributed greatly to the position being what it is. There are the control measures to which I have already referred, there are such things as wage increases, productivity, and the general cost factor. During the past few years, in particular, it has been very noticeable that there has been more and more rationalization of work on the part of employers in order to limit the number of Bantu in the White areas by means of allocating time, organization methods and similar techniques. Those are all contributing factors and that is being done in terms of the policy of this Government. That is why greater success has been achieved in the past few years and I predict that we shall continue to be more successful as far as this ratio is concerned, even if the specific number of Bantu still has to increase. We have always said that the specific number of Bantu may increase but the fact of the matter is that since 1954 to 1964 the position has improved as far as the ratio is concerned. And I say it will continue to improve.

I want to mention a third aspect in connection with the control exercised over the presence of Bantu and that is the number who work in the White areas, i.e. the number of them who are here and who work in comparison with the number of Bantu who are here. In other words how many work and how many do not work. They are not unemployed, because you have the women, for instance, who stay at home; they are not necessarily people who ought to work. Let us look at those figures. The figures I am about to give you, Sir, do not include the Bantu who work in urban areas, in the mines, because the Bantu who work in the mines are there on a completely labour migratory basis. Sir, I want to give you the example of four big complexes in respect of which the statistics were available. Take the area Germiston - Alberton - Bedford View-Edenvale, the greater Germiston complex. Out of the total Bantu population ten were male Bantu workers out of every 21. In the area Brakpan-Boksburg-Benoni, the far East-Rand area (excluding Springs because I could not get those figures) the ratio was 10 to 27—not as favourable as at Germiston. In the case of Johannesburg-Randburg it was 10 to 24, and 10 to 29 for Krugersdorp-Randfontein-Roodepoort. It is quite clear, therefore, that roughly half the number of Bantu were employed. We know in those areas a large percentage of the Bantu have their families with them; in other words, there are women and many children. The generally accepted figure is an average of five per family. I think these figures prove effectively that in those complexes a large number of Bantu in every Bantu community are in employment in comparison with the total number—more so when you take into account the presence of the women and children. [Interjections.] These figures relate to registered service contracts in respect of males only. The working women are not included and that strengthens my argument because we know many of those women are in domestic service or work in factories, etc. It also confirms what I said a moment ago.

I now wish to return to the position in the Western Cape and I want to tell the hon. member that he did not prove anything in respect of the Western Cape. What is the position here? Our policy in regard to the Bantu in the Western Cape is that they should gradually be removed as the work they are doing can be taken over by Coloureds and others who can do it—not only Coloureds. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member knows that there are other people in the Western Cape apart from the Bantu. There are Coloureds and Bantu and Indians and Malays The hon. member boasts about the 3,500 whom we are told have entered, but what is the position? At the end of December 1962 32,153 Bantu males were in employment in the proclaimed area of Cape Town alone. In December 1963 there were 31,317, a decrease of 800. That is not important but I am coming to the point I want to prove. In April 1963 the figure was 32,792 and in April 1964 it was 33,244 which includes that 3,500. There you had an increase of 452. The point I want to prove is that the number working in Cape Town, except for a small variation, is a constant figure. The entry of Bantu is mainly attributable to seasonal demands. [Time limit.]

The Deputy Minister has made the point that his policy has succeeded because although the over-all number of Bantu in the White areas is increasing, the proportion in the industrial areas between Black and White is decreasing. Let us accept for the purpose of the argument that that is correct. I may say that he did not deal with the rural area and I should like to hear him deal with the question of whether or not the Blacks in the rural areas are increasing. But let us apply the test of his own party to this question, merely on the acceptance that the over-all number of Blacks in the industrial areas is increasing. I want to refer to an article by the hon. member for Kempton Park in the South African Patriot in 1962 where he was dealing with the removal of the Bantu in the Western Cape. This is what he said—

There is one test which, applied to the policy of the Deputy Minister, shows a total failure of the policy of separation. But that is not the only test. Let us take the test of Dr. A. L. Geyer, the chairman of the S.A. Bureau of Racial Affairs, who said this—

On those two tests alone, both set by prominent supporters of this Government, and on the figures given to us by the Deputy Minister, there has so far been a total failure of the policy of separation, and it is progressing in the direction of failure, rather than in the direction of success.

But I would like to come now to certain remarks made by the hon. Minister in the Other Place. In regard to speeches he attributed to the United Party which were made in certain areas of the Free State in regard to the so-called conquered territory, the Minister said that if it was suggested that under the Government’s policy that area was to become part of Basutoland or would be governed by the Black people in future, to say so would be to spread a tissue of untruths, and the Minister got very angry on that score. The same thing was said by the hon. member for Smithfield, as reported in the Volksblad of Saturday 19 October 1963 where the hon. member is reported as having said this—

Then he went on to attack me personally, alleging that I had made certain statements in regard to this conquered territory.

What is your point?

What does the hon. Minister himself say in this regard? I would ask hon. members to give considerations to this extract from Hansard, Col. 245 of 30 January 1959. The hon. the Minister said this—

[Interjections.]

What has that got to do with the conquered territory? [Interjecjections.]

In answer to the hon. member for Heilbron, who feels that that extract from the speech of the Minister does not cover the question of the conquered territory, I would like to refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister at his meeting in Durban, when he said that the policy of this Government was a policy of partition, and that the manner in which that partition would take place would be that those areas historically Bantu would go to the Bantu. The conquered territory is one of them. If he disputes my approach to the historical content, I hope he will look at the Archives Year Book for 1939, Vol. II, a publication issued on the Government’s authority by the various archivists of the Union. This particular section which I will read was written by Dr. J. J. G. Grobbelaar, under the editorship of the Chief Archivists of the Union, Mr. Graham Botha, Dr. Coenraad Beyers, Professor Dr. J. O. M. Francken and Professor Dr. H. B. Thom and Dr. P. J. Venter. These gentlemen have no doubts about the position of the conquered territory because they say this—

The Prime Minister says we have in this country a policy of partition along historical lines, but how does he see in the light of this language the future of the conquered territory in the Free State? If, after Basutoland becomes independent, they approach the Minister and say: I ask you to implement your own policy and to hand over to the Basuto people those sections of the Free State which historically belong to the Basuto in terms of the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister, how can he refuse such a request? [Time limit.]

Let us once and for all clear up this question of the conquered area. The hon. the Prime Minister said very clearly that certain areas, Basutoland in particular, could be extended if they wanted to come under our complex and if there were certain areas which could be included. That is why we have an area like Witzieshoek but if anybody ever alleges that it is the policy of this Government to return to Basutoland the area that has been conquered, not only conquered in victorious battle, but which was subsequently acknowledged by an international commission, he would be very far wrong. I go further than that. People in the Free State have even said that Thaba Nchu should be linked with Basutoland by giving them the conquered area in between. How can people be so stupid? Our policy is to place the ethnic groups together and the Barolongs fall under a completely different group. Mr. Papenfus is not even the Commissioner for the Thaba Nchu area; it falls under the Tswanas, under Mr. Klopper. Nor does the Government think that Thaba Nchu is an area which can ever be joined with Basutoland, because it does not fit in there; the people are not of the same ethnic group. It is, therefore, pure malice to allege that that conquered area will ever be handed over to Basutoland and as a member of the Government I wish to state to-day that that conquered area belongs to the Free State and it will, as sure as Heaven, continue to belong to the Free State as long as we have a White civilization in South Africa.

I find the reply of the Minister of Defence very interesting. It shows that there is, to an extent, dual thinking on the side of the Government. [Interjections.] I say that because the Minister made out a case that this conquered territory had become part of the White area of South Africa by right of conquest and by right of treaties as the result of that conquest. Now, what did the Prime Minister say in Natal? He said not only that his policy was one of partition, and not only did he say that the way in which that partition would be carried out was on the basis of giving to the Bantu the land that was historically theirs, but he issued a warning. He said he was very worried about the position in Natal, and he held up the picture of a hand, and said it would tax the ingenuity of a genius to keep Natal White because so many of the Whites in Natal were living in areas which were formerly Zulu territory. Every single piece of Natal and Zululand presently occupied by the Whites is as the result of conquest and treaties following those conquests, and settlement following on those treaties, precisely in the same way as the conquered territory in the Free State was settled. When it comes to the Free State the land is perfectly safe for future White occupation, but when it comes to Natal the Prime Minister has the greatest difficulty in deciding how these areas can be kept for the White man because they are historically Bantu areas. When I said there was a measure of duality in the thinking of the Government, hon. members opposite denied it, but I hope the Minister will tell us precisely what the Prime Minister meant when he said it would tax the ingenuity of a genius to keep Natal White, because the greater part of that province where the Whites at present live historically belongs to the Bantu. I am accused of raising bogies when I talk this way, and of misrepresenting the position. Here is the ideal opportunity for the Minister to tell us precisely how this policy is to be implemented, both in the conquered territory of the Free State and in the greater part of Natal. I was not the only one who was disturbed and who had thoughts about the conquered territory in the Free State, because shortly before I spoke there was published in the Volksblad of 10 September 1963 a map. A similar map was published in the Burger on 7 December 1963 and the caption underneath these maps, which incidentally shows a greater Basutoland such as the Prime Minister has spoken of, said—

And that “bree stippellyn” includes the conquered territory. It goes on—

So it was not only I who had queries in regard to these various statements which had been made. But I am sure the Minister is in a position to elucidate both what the Prime Minister intended to convey when he spoke in Durban, and how the point of view of the Minister of Defence can be reconciled with the views expressed by the Prime Minister that there was to be partition on a historical basis, and that he had the greatest anxiety and that it would tax the ingenuity of a genius as to how great parts of Natal could be kept White, because the Whites were living in areas which were historically those of the Zulus.

The hon. member says there is duality in our thinking. Has it ever struck the hon. member that there is duality in the two cases he has mentioned? The Prime Minister said we were giving the Bantu the historical areas in the Republic of South Africa. That was done in the 1936 Act. The hon. member talks about an historical case where, more than 100 years ago, we got that area by conquering a foreign power, incidentally under British rule, and where, under British pressure, we unlawfully had to sacrifice a large portion of that area but we retained a small remnant, however, and that is something totally different. The hon. member cannot mention one instance where the Prime Minister or anybody else said we would hand over any area to foreign powers outside the Republic because of any pressure of a historical nature by a foreign power. [Interjections.] We did not say we would hand over any land because of any historical demand on the part of any foreign power. What the Prime Minister did say in connection with the protectorates was that there were already defined Bantu areas adjacent to the protectorates, areas which were reserved in the 1936 settlement and recognized by us as Bantu areas. He said that those areas, where they fitted ethnically into the adjoining protectorates, might become the subject of negotiations with a view to extending the boundaries of those protectorates. The hon. member for Zululand, however, suggests that the National Government has said we will sacifice some of the Republic’s territory in favour of Basutoland or any other country for historial or any other reasons. [Interjections.] Even now the hon. member is still too stupid to understand what I am saying. I say the Prime Minister did not say in his statement concerning the protectorates that we would hand over any area to foreign powers. He said if the protectorates and the Republic came to an understanding we could have discussions and negotiations in respect of the adjoining Bantu areas which were already defined and which adjoined the protectorates.

But I want to make two other points. I wish to address the one to the Leader of the Opposition. Because he reads his policy in the Sunday Times he must not think that a drawing error by or the idea of a clerk in any newspaper office has anything to do with the policy of this Government. Our policy is formulated by our leaders and is not read anywhere. The importance of the statement by the hon. member for Zululand, and its acclamation by the Leader of the Opposition, lies in this that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories was the first person who started this agitation that if the homelands policy were carried out there would have to be a more equitable redistribution of the territory of the Republic between White and Bantu. [Interjections.] We now have this agitator from Zululand …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw the statement that he is an agitator, Sir. We now get this agitation from the hon. member that (a) historically and (b) according to statements by this Government Basutoland has a claim to the conquered area. He builds on the idea of the hon. member for Transkeian Territory that if this Government wishes to carry out its homelands policy new areas must be handed over to the Bantu and the Leader of the Opposition applauds that. It is very clear that they are trying to evolve a new pattern of propaganda. They are trying to manufacture a story so that they can say to the public that the National Party wants or has to make the Bantu areas larger than they will be in terms of the 1936 settlement. But in actual fact they are the party who, in co-operation with the world outside, are planting the idea in the minds of the South African Bantu and of the world outside, that we can depart from the 1936 settlement but it has been stated over and over again on behalf of the Government that there is no question of departing from the 1936 provisions. But two speakers, together with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who unfortunately did not get guidance timeously from the Sunday Times, have in this debate stimulated the idea of handing over a larger area of land to the Bantu, It is a sinister consequence of the United Party policy of playing into the hand of the world outside that to-day they too want to stimulate this idea that the Government is obliged to come to a new settlement with the Bantu whereby the Bantu will palm in larger White areas and the United Party stand accused of, and from the lips of their own speakers they have been found guilty, of once again seeking the favour of the outside world by echoing what the great ones outside prescribe.

It is quite clear that the hon. member who has just spoken is not certain of his ground. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister was bidding against Great Britain; he was offering Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland better conditions if they came under South Africa and then they would get the additional territory. He knows that the Prime Minister was bidding to try to get those three protectorates to come under South Africa. That is why there is this uncertainty. That additional area included the Basuto territory. That is why the Minister of Defence entered into this debate.

Utter tripe.

Order! The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) must not make remarks of that kind.

Sir, it is time we got clarity when we raise these matters, but it is equally important that we get clarity on the Government’s assurances, because my opinion is that the assurances of the Government are worth nothing. For inefficiency, for muddling and indecision commend thee to this Government as far as Bantu areas are concerned! Take my own constituency. In 1948 when I came to Parliament I saw the then Minister of Native Affairs and asked him what his intention was with regard to the Bantu area in Pinetown. I invited the Minister of Bantu Affairs there. He came to this area and the town council entertained him to lunch. He did not approve of one site but he approved of another site in Pinetown for a Bantu area. In due course that gentleman was made Governor-General, and the present Prime Minister was made Minister of Native Affairs. He was invited to Pinetown; he was also entertained by the town council and he approved of the new area of which his predecessor had approved. The Pinetown town council then proceeded to lay out this area for a township, but in the meantime some good friends of the Nationalist Party had built houses near that area and sent a deputation to the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Native Affairs, and after two or three years he changed his mind and said that the Native area should be further away in Klaarwater. Klaarwater was then developed and a few hundred houses were built there with money raised from the Government, and eventually the Minister of Native Affairs decided that it was not a very important township so he sent his understudy, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to open this new township, and the Deputy Minister went there.

Was he invited to lunch?

I forget whether he was entertained to lunch, but he went to that area; he met the Bantu there and congratulated them on having moved there. In May 1961 he said that this township had been established in accordance with Government policy. He opened the new township. Is that not so? He will not deny that he opened the township; he will not deny that he said that it had been established in accordance with Government policy. He will not deny that he encouraged the people to establish themselves there, to have their own schools, their own houses and their own playing fields, etc. He said that this was all in terms of Government policy. And what happaned this year? This year, on 28 February, it was advertised in the Government Gazette that this was going to be a new Indian area.

So what!

Sir, this is what is taking place; the Government does not know its own mind. Two former Ministers of Native Affairs (one of whom subsequently became Governor-General and one of whom subsequently became Prime Minister) and the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Deputy Minister, all said that this was going to be a Native area, and now that it is proposed to make it an Indian area, hon. members say, “So what!” I hope the Deputy Minister is going to go to that area and ask the Bantu there what they think of the White man’s word. They have no confidence in the White man’s word; they have no confidence in this Government. The assurances of any Minister of Bantu Administration are worth nothing to them. If they try to move the Bantu from that township and trouble breaks out, the responsibility for that trouble will lie at the door of this Government. They have encouraged families to move there; they have encouraged them to establish their schools and home there; the burial grounds of the Bantu have been established there. All this has been done during the period of office of this Government. They have changed their minds three times, and on 28 February of this year this area was advertised as a proposed Indian area. Here I have a map from the Government Department concerned, and right in the middle of this map it says, “Pinetown Bantoe-woongebied”. And yet the hon. the Deputy Minister says “So What!” when I tell him that it is now proposed to make this an Indian area. Is this same Deputy Minister going to go to those Bantu and tell them to move peacably, or is he going to change his mind again? Sir, for sheer muddled inefficiency you can hand it to this Government! No wonder people are uncertain. No wonder they are uncertain about the boundaries outside Basutoland; no wonder they are uncertain about these various areas; no wonder the people of Natal are uncertain when there is one rule for the Free State, because the Minister of Defence puts up a case for the Free State, and another rule for Natal. No assurance of any kind by this Government, whether it has to do with large areas or even Native townships, is worth the paper it is written on.

I should like to advise the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) rather to talk about economic matters of which he knows something because of his experience, but the hon. member for Pinetown knows less about these matters than the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and when I say that I am saying a mouthful.

What is the position at Klaarwater? [Interjections.] If hon. members opposite will show a little good breeding, and give me an opportunity to explain, I shall do so gladly.

Order! What about members on that side?

Order!

[Inaudible.]

I can understand why the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) will not give me an opportunity, but it is strange to me why he will not respect you. I should like to explain the position as regards Klaarwater. Klaarwater was established as an urban Bantu residential area, not as a homeland town where the Bantu will have property rights. It was established as a Bantu residential area. It was established there at the time because it was imperative to give those Bantu a residential area near the urban area of Pinetown. I have not yet even seen that map the hon. member for Pinetown has referred to.

It appeared in the Gazette.

What difference does it make if I say I have not seen it? It is probably a map of the Groups Areas Board, of the Department of Community Development, which advertises a proposal they are going to investigate in terms of the law. Let us consider the two possibilities now. The one possibility is that, after making their inquiry, they may say they no longer desire that place as a group area after hearing the representations. This advertisement relates to an inquiry which is still to take place. The hon. member knows nothing about the group areas machinery either. Supposing the result of the inquiry is that they do not want Klaarwater as an Indian group area, then it means that Klaarwater remains what it is, namely an ordinary urban Bantu residential area, or a town location as hon. members opposite call it. But the other alternative is that after that inquiry the Group Areas Board may decide, and the Minister concerned may approve this decision, that it should become a group area for e.g. Indians. Then it means that the Bantu will have to leave that area. What does it mean then? It means then that other provision will have to be made for those Bantu. This is not the first case of this nature we have had in South Africa. Do hon. members not know that at the present time there are numerous such places in the country where one population group is moved from its residential area. At the present time there is such an example at the East Rand where the Bantu are moving from Stirtonville to Vosloosrus, the new Bantu residential area, and the Indians or the Coloureds are going to establish themselves at Stirtonville as a group area. There are many similar places in the country. What may happen in Pinetown is probably that those Bantu at present living in Klaarwater, where they cannot own their dwellings and their premises, and can only hire, where they cannot acquire ownership of land because it is within the White urban area, in the White group areas, will be resettled, when they have to move someday, in a Bantu township which we will provide for them within a Bantu area or within a released area. There they will be able to acquire ownership of their land; they will be able to own their own homes; they will then become a land-owning class in their own area. In other words, the only alternative possibly waiting for those Bantu—we do not know as yet whether that is going to be, because we do not know yet what the decisions are going to be under the group areas system—will be an improvement upon what they have to-day, namely a town in which they will be able to live on a basis of ownership of land. Is that the kind of argument the Opposition should drag into this debate in an attempt to create atmosphere? That argument is as stupid as that of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) with his story of the conquered area. That story of the conquered area is of such a misguided nature that nobody here need pursue it any further; it is utter nonsense. The hon. member for Zululand has revealed an absolute Rip van Winkle mentality. He is living still further back in the past than the period when that area became part of the Free State, as the hon. the Minister of Defence has said. Mr. Chairman, I am not making any further reference to the conquered territory, because I do not wish to allow the little bit of intelligence I have been endowed with to sink so far below my level of intelligence as to be on a level with his intelligence.

Then there were a few loose points raised here by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) on which I should like to say a word or two. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories made a big fuss here and said: Where are the factories in the Transkei; where are the secondary industries that are to be established there? Does the hon. member not know how industries are established? Even if he does not know, perhaps one little word might provide a little guidance for him, and that is the word “secondary”. Secondary surely means “secondly”; it comes after other things. Although the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has no knowledge of the things going on around him, does he not know that certain basic development works have to be tackled in any country in the world before factories can be established [Interjection.] No, in the very first speech the hon. member made here he said much should have been done, and that nothing had been done in the homelands. The hon. member ought to know that under the five-year plan for the development of the Bantu areas, we are engaged throughout South Africa and in the Transkei too on basic development which is needed there: Improvement of the soil, soil reclamation, rehabilitation works, the construction of roads, water supply, dam building. All these things are nothing but basic work. There is even basic work such as the provision of basic raw materials, e.g. the planting of fibre, and the establishment of forests, etc. Does the hon. member want to build factories without having any raw materials; without having a single product to process in the factory? Does the hon. member wish to put up a factory without water being available for the factory, without electricity being available, without having a road to that factory? Does the hon. member not know how the economic development of any country comes about? Does he not know the successive phases? We refer to secondary industries. Secondary to what? The hon. member does not even want to provide the “what”. The hon. member should be a little more patient. All these things he desires will come. He need not worry about it. I told the hon. member just now that Rome was not built in a day. The Transkei and the border industries cannot be established in one day either. If the hon. member will be just a little patient and rather co-operate positively, we shall be able to bring about much more that is good.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) used the same kind of stupid argument. Then, as regards the point already dealt with by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) in connection with the reference of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to the “inequitable distribution of land”, I should like to mention only this further point: The hon. member for Transkeian Territories referred to the unequal distribution of land for the Bantu, as hon. members also have done here before. I merely wish to point out that the position as regards land has been laid down very explicitly in the Acts of 1913 and 1936, with the possibility of development, in terms of the Act of 1936, that land to a maximum extent of 7,250,000 morgen may be added to Bantu areas, and there it is provided for very definitely. When the 7,250,000 morgen of land is reached, the acquisition must stop, whether the hon. member calls it “creeping paralysis” or whether it is called the releasing of areas, as long as this Act of 1936 remains on the Statute Book, and hon. members opposite ought to know that. But I should like to tell hon. members opposite that according to their policy of race federation, they have already by implication surpassed the 7,250,000 morgen of land promised to the Bantu in 1936, because in terms of the United Party policy they say that the Bantu should be able to acquire ownership of land in the White areas, here in Cape Town, in Johannesburg in Pretoria and wherever they may be living. I should like to remind hon. members that all over the whole of South Africa, in all the 400 or 500 or 600 local authorities in existence to-day, wherever there are town locations, there are hundreds of thousands—perhaps 1,000,000 morgen of land already—in the form of urban Bantu residential areas, and in terms of their policy that land may become the property of the Bantu, together with other land, if they are willing to permit it, within the White residential areas. The United Party has therefore already surpassed the 7,250,000 morgen of land promised in 1936, in terms of their policy. Those hon. members must realize that fully. The United Party must not think the people are so stupid as not to appreciate the implications of their policy. [Time limit.]

It was interesting to watch the duality on that side of the House. Every Minister and every member on that side who has thus far spoken has had a story of his own. The hon. the Deputy Minister once again referred to the policy of the United Party in an attempt to divert attention from the policy of the National Party. He tells us, almost with tears in his eyes, that the Government is going to adhere to the 1936 legislation and that they are going to acquire only such land as has been released under the 1936 legislation, but surely the Deputy Minister knows that that is not correct; surely he knows certain portions have been added, and he knows that when a part has been added the next farm is automatically regarded as a released area. The Deputy Minister is in the habit, as soon as he finds himself in difficulties, of saying that another member is stupid and does not appreciate the position. He got to his feet here to-day and referred to the rate of increase of the Bantu in the White community, and do you know where he ended? He said the rate of increase from 1936 to 1946 was 2.3 per cent; from 1946 to 1951 it was 2.8 per cent, and from 1951 to 1960 it dropped from 2.8 per cent to 2.4 per cent per annum. Mr. Chairman, was the period prior to 1946 not the war period when the influx policy was suspended? The hon. the Deputy Minister ought to know that the period before 1946, when there was no influx control, was the most difficult period in our history. Sir, I referred to duality and uncertainty on that side of the House. The hon. the Deputy Minister is saying that the uncertainty to-day is not limited to the White people alone, but that all races in this country are uncertain, because he tells the hon. member for Pinetown that if that Native township is moved, if the Natives have to go to another place, that will not be the only case of its kind, because other racial groups are also being moved and are going to be removed, and the process is going to continue. Sir, just imagine, it is the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration who is telling that kind of tale. The hon. the Minister of Defence tells us, with tears in his eyes, that as long as there is one White man in the Free State, those conquered areas will not be touched. But what about Umtata where there are many White people; what about them?

They are not in the Free State.

And what about Natal? Just listen to what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development told us here this morning. What is his story? He says that these border industries merely amount to decentralization of the rural industries, and then he continues, and says: See how well things are going; see how splendidly things are going; see how the Bantu are being integrated. And then he mentions Phalaborwa and he refers to Newcastle and Estcourt and Buffalo River and Ladysmith and Bergville and all those places. Then he refers to Newcastle and he says: “Look at Dutchpond”, and he talks about Phalaborwa, but surely that is White man’s land. Dutchpond is, after all, five miles distant from Newcastle; it is between Utrecht and Newcastle, in the constituency of the Minister of Bantu Education. That, now, is the solution of the hon. the Minister; that is now apartheid! And then he says members on this side should come along and look at the wonderful position there, and in the same breath he says that of course all the Bantu now wish to return to the Transkei; that they wish to go and live amidst the riches of the Transkei. But what is the position? Apparently the whole country now wishes to go and live in the Transkei. When one hears the tales of the industries that are going to be developed in the Transkei, one would swear the Natives just pick up gold sovereigns under the stones of the cattle kraals and hand them over to him. Now the hon. the Minister says we must go and see the position at Dutchpond. Mr. Chairman; I have been looking at Dutchpond for years; I live there, in fact, and I see there are 20,000 families placed five miles from Newcastle. There is a tent town on the banks of the White River, three miles from one of my farms, and then the hon. the Minister wants to tell me that that is apartheid! He says that is the solution. But what kind of a solution is that? Those 20,000 families situated in Dutchpond, and the other crowd sitting in tents on the White River, have nothing to live on. There is no industry in which they can be employed. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentions secondary industries, and there is a terrific fuss about that now. We do not mind what kind of industry it is, as long as it is an industry which can offer employment to the Natives. Do you know what the people of Newcastle and the people of Utrecht are saying ? They say they will wake up one morning and find that whole multitude of Natives in the town, demanding food and employment. Where are they going to get that? The hon. the Minister puts 20,000 families there and there is no work for them. You see, we are living in this “never-never land” of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He gets such a heavenly glow on his face, and then he tells us that he will never disappoint his sons and daughters. It is high time he begins to do something for those sons and daughters of his, particularly that large group of them sitting near Newcastle and that large group sitting in the district in which I reside. If I were the Minister of Bantu Education, I would not feel at ease for a single hour, because he is allowing himself to be used by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development for the placing of all his surplus Natives in that constituency. And what is happening in other towns?

Must they come and live on your White farm?

The Deputy Minister asks whether they should come and live on my White farm. Sir, it is not my policy that is being tested; it is the policy of separate development of that Government. You certainly cannot put multitudes of Bantu into White areas and then say you are applying apartheid. What more does the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development do? He does exactly what he has done in Pinetown. Where Bantu townships have been established in some of the bigger towns, and where building is in progress already—some of them have 300 to 400 dwellings; I am thinking of Ladysmith for instance—there an edict from the Minister suddenly comes like a bolt from the blue that there shall be no further building activities in that area, and that no further industrial development shall take place there. The town council is told: Unless you can persuade the farmers to sell their farms—I mention this example, unless you can persuade the people of Wesselsnek to sell their land so that it may be added to the Msinga Native area—you will have no border industries and no development and you will have no Native township. There is no end to the methods which are applied to surround the White man and to endanger his economy and his livelihood. But, Sir, I have referred to duality. Hon. members opposite do not know what they are talking about, as I have shown here this afternoon. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. S. F. Steyn) says we on this side do not know what we are talking about, and he spoke of the conquered areas. He says of course there are no such things. He denies that the Prime Minister said that, but he leaves a back-door open for himself. He says there is no such thing as the conquered areas being returned to the Protectorates unless there is a change of sovereignty. What does that mean? [Time limit.]

I do not wish to follow the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), for then I shall make myself guilty of duality! I should like to refer to an item under Loan Vote N, the loan to the municipality of Edenvale for the resettlement of Bantu living in the municipal locations. For years there has been a struggle to have this location removed to Thembisa. The difficulties that arose there were enormous. We know that for years they have struggled there to have these Bantu removed. The Bantu from many of the other local authorities, such as Germiston, Bedford View as well as Kempton Park were accommodated in this location. After the war it was difficult to obtain accommodation for these people. Edenvale at the time had to help the Department by accommodating these people in the Edenvale location. In due course many of the local authorities in that vicinity resettled their Bantu in Thembisa, but the Edenvale location authority found it very difficult because it is not a wealthy urban area. They cannot tax their taxpayers too heavily. They had a large sum of money which they used to accommodate the Bantu in Thembisa, but they then found that they were going to be embarrassed. Here I should Eke to tell the hon. the Minister and his Department that the voters of Edenvale are very thankful for this loan of R100,000. It will now enable them to remove these Bantu and it will also enable the Department to see to it that this location will disappear completely. Of course it will take a little time still.

There are two points I should like to mention in this connection. The one is in connection with transport. I hope and trust, in view of the recent negotiations with the Department, that the Department will assist the Edenvale local authority as far as possible in transporting the Bantu. The difficulty at the moment is that they have to make use of the train service and bus transport. It costs them a lot of money and the Bantu are not keen to travel so far. They have to rise early in the morning and they return home late at night. If direct transport by road could be arranged, it will of course help a lot.

As regards the second matter, I should like to address my remarks to the Treasury. I should like to urge the Treasury to see to it that this money is granted to the City Council of Edenvale at a sub-economic rate of interest. Edenvale has throughout the years developed comparatively slowly, but during the past two years it has developed very rapidly. They require large sums of money for sewerage and for the development of the urban area in general, for the construction of roads, etc. They cannot raise their rates too much, because all the people residing there fall within the middle income group. There are many also who do not even fall within the middle income group. Increased rates will hit them vary hard. If they are to be taxed to cover the interest charged on the ordinary market, it will mean that the municipality will have to over-tax the people. I am pleading for the South Africans there—English speaking as well as Afrikaans speaking—who certainly cannot afford to pay higher rates. We know the cost of living is high at the present time, and if we could have this concession as regards the rate of interest, it will of course be a tremendous help to give relief there, and it will also enable the Edenvale municipality to redeem the loan together with the interest thereon by easy stages. I understand that to begin with they will be unable to repay much, but later on they will be able to do so.

In conclusion I should like once again to thank the Minister and his administration for this concession and for this loan.

If there are two members in this House whom I thought would have risen in their seats to participate in this debate they are the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) and the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) because there is uncertainty and seething discontent in regard to the boundaries of the proposed Tswanaland in the constituencies of those two hon. members. The hon. member for Marico is in a sense, I am sorry to say, my public representative for certain of my interests but he has certainly not protected them in the course of this debate.

The Minister has announced that it is the policy of his Department in respect of the purchase of land for the final fixing of these proposed homelands to co-operate to the fullest extent with organized agriculture and that whenever suggestions are made for the purchase of land either inside or outside released areas the Department will co-operate fully with the farming community in the area concerned. I want to say to the Minister that since that announcement of Government policy there has not been any co-operation whatsoever between his Department and organized agriculture, particularly as far as the purchase of land for Tswanaland is concerned.

Nonsense.

The hon. Minister says I am talking nonsense, but I want to call the hon. member for Rustenburg as my witness. In every instance where proposals have been put up by organized agriculture I do not think the Minister can give me one example of where he has accepted those proposals. [Interjections.] If that is untrue then I say the Minister has rather followed a policy of approaching individual Members of Parliament of his party for the areas concerned in order to see if they can arrive at arrangements with the farmers concerned. As the Minister knows, certain meetings were held by the Rustenburg, Marico and Swantruggens farmers’ associations. The proposals made by the Rustenburg farmers’ association, in particular, with regard to the purchase of land affecting that particular area were turned down by the hon. Minister’s Department. Arrangements were then arrived at that the hon. member for Rustenburg should act as liaison and try to persuade the farmers concerned to sell their land. I have the minutes of that meeting here. I do not want to read everything except the relevant parts. They say—

Then they go on—

That was “’n skikking” with the dissatisfied farmers in regard to the boundary lines suggested by the “Distrikunie”.

The hon. member for Marico knows about the dissatisfaction that exists in his constituency; he knows about the representations he has had from the farmers’ association in Swartruggens. The fact remains that as far as the boundaries of the proposed Tswanaland are concerned there is not a farmer in that area to-day who is prepared to make a capital investment because of the uncertainty; he does not know whether his land will be purchased or not.

That is not true.

Why does the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) not take the trouble to look at the correspondence that is written to his Department? Then he will know what representations have been made by, for instance, the Potgietersrust Farmers’ Association.

Why is the hon. Minister following a new policy to-day? Because he cannot persuade the farmers’ associations to accept the proposals of his Department, he now exploits the difficulties the farmers are experiencing in certain areas, particularly in the north-western Transvaal where the drought conditions are as extreme as they are to-day. You have the position to-day, Sir, that individual farmers have no desire to co-operate whatsoever, because they reject entirely the idea of establishing a Bantustan in the Transvaal. The hon. member for Marico knows it. He knows what has been said to him at farmers’ association meetings. They neither want or wish to sell their land in order to have a Bantustan right on their borders. That has been stated to the hon. member many times.

Some of them want to sell.

The reason why the Minister does not want to accept the proposals made by the farmers’ associations is because he feels his department can better exploit the economic difficulties, to the advantage of his Department. So many of these farmers in the drought-stricken area find themselves in such economic difficulties that the only way out for them is to sell to the Department at a greater profit and not to accept the proposals made by the “Landbou-unie”. I see the hon. member for Rustenburg has entered the Chamber and is taking an interest in the debate. He knows what I am saying here is true. He has had to face it at a meeting himself. He knows what the position is in his constituency. I do not want to name any areas, but I could if I wanted to.

Then there is another thing. How far is the Minister to go with this concept of purchasing land outside released areas? Information has come to my ears that his Department is making contact with certain farmers who find themselves in bad economic circumstances because of the drought and making them offers for their land which is outside released areas. I believe those farmers have more or less been given an undertaking that the Department will consider purchasing their farms. The Minister laughs. I know this is a very touchy issue and that was why we had such violent reaction from the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). I should say the hon. members for Marico and Rustenburg receive letters daily from their constituents in regard to this.

That is not true.

It is easy to say that. Then the hon. member should tell me why such strong exception was taken to the request from the Department that he should act as liaison between the individual farmers over the heads of organized agriculture in those areas. Will the Minister deny that?

I shall give you an answer.

The hon. member will not be able to deny that because he knows what I say is true. [Time limit.]

In this debate the Opposition has spoken in a very belittling manner of the work the Government is doing in connection with our policy of Bantu homelands. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said very little has been done and that very much more ought to be done. The hon. the Minister earlier this afternoon pointed out to us that priority had first to be given to housing; that the slum-conditions had to be eliminated first. When we look at what has been effected, the Opposition must admit much has been achieved.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, referred to the uncertainty with regard to boundaries in certain areas. The only thing he is trying to do, is to create uncertainty in the minds of the farming community. The United Party is fond of discussing race matters in connection with our Bantu policy. I am not finding fault with that, for it is very important. But I do object to the fact that they have become nothing but the echo of the English language liberal Press. I am referring to the Rand Daily Mail, the Sunday Times and the Cape Times which have during recent years, been pointing out that only 20 per cent of our population are Whites; that percentage is then broken up further; the Nationalists constitute only 11 per cent and they are the people now who are implementing the policy of separate development in the country; these 11 per cent are the only people who approve of that policy. Then the world is being given the impression that all the other Whites, including the United Party are in favour of implementing the policy of one man, one vote here. In recent times the United Party has made more and more concessions to the left wing. During this Session they have made various statements here which, I believe, were aimed at discrediting our country overseas. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), with a sardonic smile on his face, said that the Minister had used the word “revolution” in connection with the development of the homelands. He construed it as a rebellion, whereas the hon. the Minister meant “evolution” or “development”. The hon. member knows he tried to create a wrong impression by placing that construction on that word.

Various views have been expressed in this debate in relation to this Government, which are offensive and which will harm us overseas. I refer to the hon. member for Simons-town who referred to gas chambers; the hon. member for Benoni referred to slave labour; the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) referred to “death by torture”. They are saying these things in an attempt to discredit the Government overseas. Mr. Chairman, what is their aim in doing so? All they are doing is to say to the Bantu: If there is a revolution, we shall approve of it. The person who first used the word “revolution” in this House, is the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members cannot carry on like that. If the hon. members for Durban (Point), Transkeian Territories and Port Elizabeth (West) wish to make speeches, they will have an opportunity later on. I cannot permit them to go on like that.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) tries to attribute the word “revolution” to our Prime Minister. But the Leader of the Opposition was the father of that word. He intimated to the Bantu of this country that if there is to be a revolution, it will meet with the approval of the Opposition. The Opposition hopes that there will be a shock emanating from outside, as they said on one occasion, so that they may try to get into power once again somehow. That is what they are aiming at, and nothing else. The United Party is very sensitive about their own policy. They are unwilling to say anything about their own policy. Indeed, I have not heard anything positive from their side during this debate. They have criticized the Bantustan policy of the Government, but they have made no positive contribution. They are very sensitive about criticism of their policy by us, because they know where that policy will lead the country.

Our policy is not under discussion.

That is the attitude one finds, Mr. Chairman. But there is an electorate who wish to know which policy is best. The Opposition claim to be the alternative Government. If they hope to become the alternative Government, they really should give the country some idea of how they will better administer the Bantu Administration and Development Vote.

I wish to revert to the hon. member for Durban (Point). Yesterday he referred to the statement of the hon. member for Krugerdorp (Mr. N. J. van den Berg) that Israel is the homeland of the Jews. The hon. member for Durban (Point) then asked whether the Jews of Israel had the vote in Israel or here? Did the hon. member say that?

Not exactly; but more or less.

He says it is correct that he asked that question. Now I should like to ask him a few questions. What is the implication of that question of his? Is he not suggesting that it is the policy of the United Party to grant to the Banu in the White areas of the Republic, one man one vote, as in the case of the Jews? [Interjections.] That is the implication of his question. He said the Jews in South Africa have the vote here and not in Israel. By saying that, he has sent overseas the view that the United Party is in favour of granting the franchise to the Bantu within the White areas.

It is very clear that the United Party is moving to the left, and that they are trying to transmit overseas the idea that they are in favour of one man one vote, while we know that in actual fact they do not approve of it. They are trying to mislead the Bantu by means of incitement. I should like to express my admiration for the Bantu having regard to all the incitement by liberals and communists as well as by this new United Party. Having regard to all the agitation perpetrated by them, and having regard to the friendly disposition there still is, one has to admire the Bantu. The United Party is very sick at heart because the Bantu is supporting this Government’s policy to the extent to which they are in fact supporting it. They are disappointed at the great success we have achieved in the Transkei. It is clear that the Bantu policy of the Government is making rapid strides, and that the Bantu is realizing to-day that separate development is to his advantage, and that he may exercise his civic rights within his own area, the civic right of which everyone of us in this country is proud. [Time limit.]

I can only express surprise at the remarks made by the previous speaker to the effect that the United Party was encouraging a revolution and that it would support the Natives if there were to be a revolution. Has that hon. member the impudence to say my leader said that?

He said “if” there were a revolution.

It is not only untrue, Sir, but it is a lie. That is the position. I want to clinch it once and for all: It is an out-and-out lie.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) told a lie?

He said “if”.

I shall explain what I said. That hon. member accuses my hon. leader of having said that he would encourage revolution amongst the Natives and support the Natives in that revolution. It is a lie.

That was not what you said.

If that is not what I said you can correct it.

I now want to get back to more sane ideas. There are a few questions to which the hon. the Minister must still reply. Mr. Chairman, you will pardon me for returning to them because it is causing greater anxiety and aggravation in the Corridor, which is known as the Border Corridor, than you have ever had in history. Before I deal with that question I want to deal with the remarks by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) who accused the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) of having said that he wanted a more equitable distribution of the land in South Africa. He did not say so, Sir. But in any case, I should just like to remind the hon. the Minister that, if ever such a thing should have to take place, the Natives in the Transkei might have to forego a section of that land in the interests of the Whites. Because of experiments and research carried out by the Government itself we know that land is capable of carrying, when developed, at least 50,000,000 more sheep than is carried by the whole of South Africa at present. We can accept it that that section which is owned by the White section of South Africa is fully developed and fully stocked. The hon. member for Kempton Park went on to say that the historical homelands would be the future boundaries of these Bantustans. What is interesting are the remarks that have come from the Chief Minister of the Transkei from time to time. The hon. the Minister knows full well that the Chief Minister has staked his claim, first of all, to the area from the Fish River to the Zululand border. That idea has fallen away temporarily but it is working up again and demands have been made in that regard. Secondly, he made another claim and that was to the whole of Ugie, Maclear, Elliot, Queenstown, Indwe, East Griqualand, Harding and some sections of Natal. I was not surprised to hear the Minister say he was not fully informed because he cannot be fully informed. Those are the demands made by the Transkei and they are going to continue to make them. I want to know what the Minister’s reaction is to those demands. The hon. the Minister has told us from time to time that he has got to get more land to fulfil the requirements of the 1936 Act, an Act to which he has committed himself. He has bought quite a lot of what was scheduled. There must be very little left. The hon. Minister has gone far beyond those areas, Sir. I am sure he would not suggest that the areas he bought on the eastern perimeter of the Ciskei reserve were released areas. The Minister has taken the power to buy any land and that makes the position of those people living in the Corridor still more precarious. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not give us some assurance that he is not going to close that Corridor any more than it is closed at present. That is important to those Whites who have fought for and lived in that Corridor and protected the rest of South Africa from the encroachment of Natives in the past. They should know what the future holds in store for them. Their very future depends on it. Surely the hon. the Minister can give us an idea of what he intends to do so that these people can make arrangements for the future.

Unfortunately the Minister has done something more serious. He is evacuating Natives from the Western Cape and other big towns. A few of those Natives go to the Transkei, a few to the border but many go to the reserves. Many of them are parking their families on mission land as squatters, in the reserves and on farms. Does the hon. the Minister realize what is going to happen as a result? We have told the Minister in the past that this illegal squatting is taking place on such a scale that it is becoming dangerous. When an area is full of squatters the Department says: We better take it over; we now declare it a released area. That is happening. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the position in the whole of that eastern corridor is such that it is becoming dangerous to both Natives and Whites. The tsotsi gangs and the uncontrolled thieving gangs that have set themselves up are becoming a menace to that part of the country. The Minister’s Department stakes its claim to that land immediately it has, what the Department calls, an abundance of Natives in it. Will the hon. Minister indicate to me whether he intends to take any action to remove those squatters to townships where they can be cared for. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the male members of those families are simply returning to Cape Town as migrant labourers. They get employed in the same services where they were employed before they were evacuated. What is in fact taking place is that these Natives are being ousted with their families; they park their families in the Corridor and the male members return. They are streaming back as is apparent from the figures that have been mentioned here.

I now want to come to this question of the border industries. What really constitutes a border town at which we might expect a border industry to be established? To my mind there is really only one border town in that Corridor that has all the facilities to become a suitable border industrial town and that is King William’s Town. The hon. Minister knows there are tens of thousands of idle squatting Natives in the whole of that section of the country. Over and above that it has the power and water, for that matter, every possible facility. But what is being done? The hon. the Minister has bought land to connect East London so as to be able to call it a border town. He has established an industry there. Sir, there is a clamour from almost every city and town in South Africa for border industries. They all want border industries, regardless of where they are situated. What is the hon. Minister going to do about it? There are certain areas that I will admit are eminently suitable for the establishment of border industries. But to carry on as we are and try and bring that labour to where you are going to establish an industry is quite wrong. [Time limit.]

Because I knew that I would be dealing with hon. members who do not understand the truth and who have so little regard for truth that they do not know what it is, I armed myself very well in regard to this matter. I think the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) does not know at all what he is talking about. He has not the slightest idea of what actually happened. But the Opposition members, as usual, grasp at something and continue with it, without understanding anything about it. There is a piece of land which almost forms a point in the Pilansberge, and that strip of land is surrounded by Bantu territory, and the land was offered by the owners to the Minister, through my mediation. The owners approached me with a document in which they offered that land. There was no opposition which had to be overcome. The people who were opposed to it are still outside that reserve to-day, and I can bring witnesses who were at the meeting to give evidence that I told them that they could remain outside if they wanted to. But there was a dispute about the boundary, not in regard to the sale of the land. One section wanted the boundary in the mountains, and the Minister could not accept that, and therefore there was a difference of opinion among these people. The Minister instructed me to hold a meeting there, and I think that is the meeting to which the hon. member for Turffontein referred. But because I know him, and knew that he would be sitting listening with open ears, I took a stenographer to the meeting and I had every word spoken at that meeting recorded by a qualified stenographer who also sometimes records cases in the Supreme Court, and I handed that report of 65 pages to the Minister. Therefore the allegation by the hon. member that the farmers are upset by the purchase of land there is simply not true. I cannot describe that untruth in words. Words are quite inadequate. The hon. member told an untruth when he said those people were so dissatisfied. To prove my proposition, I want to say that the people in that whole area of 22 miles offer their land to the Government. I can prove by means of documents which at the moment are in the office of the Minister that those dissatisfied people referred to by the hon. members offered their land to the Minister over a distance of 22 miles. The Minister has already refused to accept the offer of certain land. Sir, if the truth were poison then that hon. member would never have grown up; the poison would have killed him while he was still small. Because there is not a word of truth in the allegation that the farmers are up in arms against the Minister, against me and against my colleague. We are the greatest friends in the world. I have the offers made by those people. What is more, at that meeting I was congratulated by the biggest United Party supporter in Rustenburg, and that is also recorded in this report. But here we have a man who stands outside and knows nothing about the whole matter and he condemns us and says there is so much dissatisfaction.

On what date was the meeting held?

Do not talk nonsense! I do not have the documents here now, but I challenge hon. members. I will lay that stenographic report before the House and I challenge those hon. members to study it, and I challenge them to look at the letters which I handed to the Minister, and I challenge them then to give their opinion in this House.

When was the meeting held?

I cannot remember the precise date, but it is all recorded in that report. I am not prepared for such an attack. I never thought anyone could be so foolish. That is why I am not prepared, otherwise I would have had these documents here and would have quoted from them, but because I am now obliged to act on behalf of those farmers whose names he falsely and unjustifiably used when he said that those farmers were up in arms against us, I want to repeat that there is not a word of truth in his whole speech.

I can understand the consternation of the hon. member. He knows the representations that have been made, he knows what is being said even in the town of Rustenburg in regard to his political representation in the interest of his constituents. The hon. gentleman came here to-day and he preceded his whole speech by saying that he came here well prepared, and when he was challenged to give the date of the meeting he did not know. He has forgotten, he cannot remember. Yet he says that he went to a large meeting of farmers, and here is a member of Parliament professing to represent a farming community in the Rustenburg constituency, and when he came to discuss an important matter which was causing consternation in the whole district he had to take a stenographer along because he could not trust his own constituents. He had to get a stenographer to take down what was being said for fear that his constituents might not trust him. What an admission! What a shocking admission! His confidence in that constituency is so undermined that he has to take a stenographer along so that he can place it on record to face his political enemies in the area. The hon. member knows, as I know, that in the whole of that area, including the district of Marico, there is considerable consternation amongst the entire farming community in regard to the fixing of the boundary line of the proposed Tswanaland.

You are talking absolute nonsense!

Will the hon. Minister get up and give an outline of the boundaries of the proposed Tswanaland?

You are making a fool of yourself.

The hon. Minister knows that he will make a fool of himself if he gets up and Says that what I say is untrue. Is the Minister prepared to stand up to-day and say that he can fix the borderline of Tswanaland in regard to the two constituencies of Marico and Rustenburg? I challenge the hon. the Minister to do so. If there is no uncertainty, if there is no consternation, if there is no worry about their farming future, the future of thousands of farmers in those areas, will the hon. Minister get up and give a broad outline of the proposed boundaries of Tswanaland? I challenge the Minister to do so. The hon. Minister cannot do it, neither can the hon. member for Rustenburg and that is the whole issue. Because the Tswanas at present are spread over a wide area. The hon. member says that the people in the area of Pilansberg are satisfied. I have a record of that meeting here where the farmers expressed their consternation at the purchase of even portions of the farm Hoedspruit and portions of other farms, and there was absolute uproar at the meeting, and where a motion of no-confidence was passed in the hon. member’s political representation of the area.

That is a lie!

The hon. member is shouting at me that I lie. He knows that what I am saying here to-day is true.

On a point of order, may the hon. member for Rustenburg say “that is a lie”?

If the hon. member says that the hon. member knows it is a lie, then it is not parliamentary.

He said it was a lie. Surely that is not parliamentary?

I said it was a lie.

Must I understand, Sir, that you ruling is that it is parliamentary for an hon. member to say to another member “that is a lie”?

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you why the farmers are concerned, as they are in other parts of the country. They are concerned in Natal and in large portions of the Transvaal. They are concerned about the proposed Bantustans. The hon. member has probably not seen to-night’s paper, where it is said that in the Transkeian Council, Chief Kaizer Matanzima has said that the Whites should withdraw. “This is a Black man’s country,” he said, as reported to-night Chief Kaizer Matanzima continued to say “other Bantu in South Africa will soon be talking about their land as we are doing now”. What the farmers in this area of the north-west Transvaal want to know is how soon will they be talking of the farmers’ land there as the land of the Bantu? That is the question they want answered and that is the answer that the hon. Minister cannot give. We all have the fear. I have the fear. I farm nearby there. I have no certainty, like many other farmers there, as to what will happen in these particular areas, and as to whether or not there will be a Bantu man next to me who will say “that is my land”. I challenge the Minister to get up and give us a clear picture, so that the hon. member for Rustenburg and the hon. member for Marico can go back and report to their constituents: The Minister said in Parliament that “these are the boundaries of Tswanaland and now you know that you have got to get out”. I challenged the hon. member for Marico in the last recess to let me appear on platforms with him in that constituency to put two questions: “Would he tell his constituents where the boundaries of Tswanaland are going to be?” He was too afraid even to accept my challenge or to have me at any of his meetings, or any United Party member at his branch meetings to put that question because he cannot answer it. If the hon. Minister wants to placate the consternation and if he wants to satisfy the White community of vast areas, thousands of people, let him get up and say that his intentions are honourable and that there is going to be deprivation of the rights of the White men in these areas, or let him say that no further land will be purchased in those areas for the establishment of Tswanaland, other than the released areas. Now I challenge the hon. the Minister to say where the boundaries are going to be, and let us see what the hon. member for Rustenburg is going to say in this debate when the hon. Minister refuses to do so to-day in his reply to the debate.

I do not wish to follow the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) in his tirade, except in regard to the statement he made here in regard to what Kaizer Matanzima is alleged to have said, viz. that the Whites must leave the Transkei.

Yes.

Yes, we recognize the Transkei as Black man’s land, except just the towns, etc., which are still White areas.

Matanzima does not say that.

In the course of time the White man will have to get out there, just as the Black man will have to get out of the Western Cape, because this is White territory.

That will never happen.

It will have to happen. But I really got up to react to what was said by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) in regard to what Kaizer Matanzima is alleged to have demanded in relation to those districts in my constituency, viz. Elliot, Indwe, Maclear and the so-called whole of Mount Currie. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is really the spokesman who traditionally represents the Black man here and makes all the demands on their behalf. He did that last year as well. But the demands they make there are their own affair. We could make our demands too. But we do not intend running away and surrendering everything like the United Party. We are not prepared to follow a negative policy, a defeatist policy, and hand the whole of South Africa over to them. We are only going to give them the Transkei. Have the members of the Opposition ever tried to ascertain whether there are still any released areas in those districts? There are no more released areas in those districts. But that they have never realized. The boundaries are clear. In those areas the supporters of the United Party as well as the Nationalists are agreed on this point, that the borders are clearly demarcated. We no longer quarrel about that.

Can they not be changed again?

The point is that certain United Party members become frustrated in this House, like, e.g. the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who quietly left here at the time of the Bashee murder and then held a meeting at Elliot to frighten the people, and recently again the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor), who also went to address a meeting there. That is a very suitable constituency in which to sow dissension and unrest. I just want to read what a member of the United Party, and not a member of the National Party, wrote to me. It comes from Maclear. I can give the date, but I will not give the name—

The hon. the Minister replied to that question very clearly to-day.

For the first time.

He replied to it last year also. But the tactics of the United Party are to try to sow dissension in the border areas, because it is not in their interest to have a prosperous White community there, because if we have a prosperous White community next to the Bantu areas it will obviously lead to prosperity for the Black community on the other side of the border, and that is not in their interest. That is why they try to sow unrest on the borders, and they do everything possible to bring the people there under a wrong impression, just as they try to create false political impressions in regard to the whole of South Africa. Those are their tactics. Hence all the problems we have in respect of certain people. It is you who are the cause of it, with your dual policy.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am sorry, Sir, but you know how much trouble they cause.

Mr. Chairman, I think this debate has demonstrated that the Government’s Bantustan policy fails when tested out on all practical issues. We have it now working almost in reverse. Great efforts are being made by the Government to house Natives outside the reserves. For instance in every town of any importance in this country, they are going all out to build houses to accommodate more Natives, with Government assistance. On the Witwatersrand 700,000 Natives have been accommodated and that is proof of the insincerity of the Government as regards its Bantustan policy. They know that policy cannot succeed. Even on the simple issue of fixing the boundaries of the Bantustans, even when they are so simple as those of the Transkei, the Government fails and cannot satisfy the people concerned.

One has only to see the damaging effect of the Minister’s inability to come near any solution of the boundaries of the Bantustan of the Ciskei. I refer particularly to the Peddie district, where the Minister is seeking to expropriate additional territory to erase the many Black spots and the Native-owned farms in that area. Under present conditions every European or Native owner of land in our border areas lives in an atmosphere of uncertainty as regards the future ownership of their property. The Government gives no guidance whatsoever as regards how it is going to move the future boundaries, or where the future boundaries will be. With fear and uncertainty the Minister’s next move to obtain the land he requires is awaited by families who have occupied their farms for 100 years, where the graves of their ancestors lie and where they have established a tradition and where they have developed a love for their property. I defy any member to go into the Peddie district and see with what care the European owners have developed their properties. Some of our finest farming propositions are in that area. Just put yourself in their position of being in that area and not knowing what your future as regards your ownership of your property is going to be. Imagine the damaging effect on future development, the damaging effect on love of land. These are the things which are happening through the Minister’s inability to give any satisfaction as regards where his future boundaries will be.

The Minister has given the assurance that the farmers’ associations in the particular areas will be consulted before he expropriates or purchases any properties. But that is no solution. That does not in any way solve the uncertainty that permeates that particular area. This atmosphere of uncertainty is a damaging one throughout the country. The Government allows all kinds of rumours to circulate which they assert as untrue. I would like to know what steps the Minister undertakes to use the Department of Information, or even the High Commissioner in London, to contradict the palpable untruths that are told about this country. The Minister makes no endeavour to do that. The hon. Minister actually is responsible for propagating a sense of uncertainty, not only in this country, but even overseas. The Government is sitting here with a big majority in this House, but I want to tell its members that public opinion can change, and I think the Government should be more definite in its policy, much more definite. We in the United Party support the development of the Native reserves. We want to see those reserves developed to a state that they will be able to carry the future increase of population in those reserves. We realize that that will be one of the greatest problems. General Hertzog once said to me when he introduced his segregation policy that they had hoped to reduce over-population in certain areas and provide settlements for Natives in the areas purchased under his 7,250,000 morgen scheme, and he thought that if Native areas could only cope with the increase in population there that it would be a solution to our troubles. We in the United Party believe that we have to accommodate these people and to develop our industries and resources and use the Natives in the development of this country, as has been done in the past. You cannot turn back from what has been established in the past. That is evolution. This Government is professing that it is working contrary to natural evolution and development of the peoples of a country, but it is quite impossible for them to do so. As I said, even with regard to simple questions they fail. Even in regard to the border industries, they are establishing hundreds of thousands of Natives in settlements outside the reserves, or they say they will do so. What will their future be? Take even a place like King William’s Town. It is surrounded by Native reserves. They say that in future further industries will be established there. Will not King William’s Town be incorporated in a great Native state? Is not that also possible? Is not the Minister playing with fire as regards these border industries? This carrying of industry to labour, instead of bringing labour to industries where the facilities of water and power are all available, is madness! The Government has no solution, and I say the proof is that up to now the Government is going backwards as regards the development of its policy instead of going forward. Even in the rural area, on the platteland, that carries one-third of the Native population, you find that big families are bringing about an enormous increase in the Native population. During our recent vaccination scare in the Eastern Province we had proof that there are thousands and thousands of Natives that have not been registered. We also have proof that there are individual farms carrying over 200 Natives. This is a problem for which the Government offers no solution whatever. It is not border industries or Bantustans that will settle our problems in future. It is the development of tertiary industrialization throughout the country and using Native labour where it is wanted.

It is a peculiar game that is being played here. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat Says that the Bantu homeland policy has failed, but then in the same breath he says that the Government must be more definite in its policy. He says the Bantu homelands are a failure, but they must be developed further in order to accommodate more Bantu. Well, if it is a failure, why do those hon. members ask that the homelands should be developed further? The United Party is opposed to the homeland policy. The Leader of the United Party said very clearly that he preferred to have eight Bantu representatives here to eight Bantu homelands. That shows that the United Party is against the homeland policy, but to-day they attacked the Government because it does not immediately draw the boundaries of those homelands. They do not want homelands, but they now ask the Government to delimitate the other homelands also. How is one to understand them? But I can just tell the hon. members that this Government will not allow itself to be driven by the Opposition. It will not take action helter-skelter and make mistakes which will again have to be remedied. This matter must be dealt with slowly and carefully. The Opposition attacks the Government particularly in regard to the Transkei and says that it is not being developed fast enough. But is that not the same party which said, when the Prime Minister announced his policy in regard to the Transkei, that it was a waste of money? [Interjections.] Now they ask that more money should be spent on the Transkei; the Government is not doing enough. Here they plead very nicely for the Bantu homelands, but when they go to the platteland they say that the Government is doing everything only for the Bantu.

It does nothing for the Whites.

Yes, that is what they say. They show the people all the splendid residential areas which the Government has built for the Bantu in Johannesburg and Pretoria and then they say everything is being done for the ¡Bantu and nothing for the Whites. But they neglect to say that the Bantu living in Meadowlands lived amongst the Whites under the United Party regime. They do not say that this Government took those Bantu out from among the Whites and put them on one side where there could be proper control. Nor do they tell the people that the money which was spent there is being repaid by the Bantu over a period. No, they create the impression that those houses and that land belong to the Bantu. Here they call those people Bantu and plead for them, but if the hon. member for Drakensberg goes to Natal she says that the Government now calls them Bantu but she simply calls them “Kaffers”. There is no honesty in their policy. They Want the borders to be defined, particularly in Natal. It is obvious that the Government wants to consolidate there as far as possible, and then people will have to be shifted. But if removal take place, they will fight strenuously to prevent it, and then they sow dissension among those people and say that the Government wants to give all these areas to the Kaffirs. Now I want to ask those hon. members—unfortunately there is no member from Natal here at the moment—what their attitude will be in Natal, and they must please give the reply here and not do what their leader in Natal did when he said that he would reply later, but never replied at all. What will their attitude be if the Natal Agricultural Union and the pubic recommend to the Government that those three locations, Locations Nos. 1 and 2 and the Bergville Location, should be removed from the catchment area of the Tugela, the largest river in Natal? They are opposed to removals, just as they opposed the removal at Besterspruit, in spite of the fact that the Bantu there were living in the most deplorable conditions. Then they set the whole world on fire, even overseas, in regard to that removal. I now want to ask the United Party to give a clear reply as to what their attitude will be if the Agricultural Union and the public of Natal ask that the catchment area of the Tugela should be cleared up?

That is a hypothetical question.

The hon. member is running away already, but the United Party will be forced to give a reply. Is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) against or in favour of those three locations in the catchment area of the Tugela being moved? Now they are as silent as the grave, but we will force them to say whether they are for or against it. In this problem with which South Africa is faced, where we want a fair arrangement between Whites and non-Whites and where we are trying to find the solution, the United Party will make no contribution towards solving the problem. No, it will only put obstacles in the way, as it has consistently done for all these years.

The hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) put a hypothetical question: If the Agricultural Union of Natal passes such a resolution, what will the United Party do? But they have not passed such a resolution, so it is ridiculous to put such a question The hon. member has also accused us of being for the Bantu in this debate. As I sum up this debate, the members on this side have been pleading with the Minister to give us a definite indication of where he intends to draw the boundaries of the Bantustans. We are pleading for the Whites and for the Blacks. In the Eastern Province the farmers are becoming desperate at the vacillating tactics of the Government in regard to the boundaries and the purchase of land in that area. We have made repeated efforts and public bodies have made efforts to get something definite about these boundaries, and all we get are vague and embarrassing replies.

Just give a concrete example.

We get contradictory replies and we want to know what the Government is actually doing. Ten years ago the Tomlinson Commission handed in its report, with maps, showing what they intended to do. The Government has had ample time in which to give us some other boundaries if they do not agree with the boundaries of the Commission. We want something definite that we can work on. The farmers in the Eastern Province do not know where they are, and as the result they are not able to share in this boom we are having in South Africa because they cannot develop their land, because they do not know where the boundaries will be; and not only the farmers but the townships and smaller villages in these areas are in the same position. They Cannot develop because they do not know whether the land in their vicinity is going to continue to be White land or whether it is going to be turned over to the Bantu. Professor Hobart-Houghton, in a survey he made of the boarder areas, gave a brilliant report and pointed out that it takes 27 Bantu in their forms of agriculture to equal the purchasing power of one White man. You can see what that means to any village or town in these areas. If the farmers’ land is going to be handed over to the Blacks, it will take 27 Blacks to give the same return, and obviously the villages in that area will deteriorate and in fact many of them will become ghost towns. I am thinking particularly of the Ciskei. Questions have been put in this House, and they have been answered by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Bantu Administration, as to where these boundaries are to be, and we have been told that the boundaries will be those of the areas which were historically Bantu. To-day the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr, F. S. Steyn) made the same statement quite emphatically, that the land for the Bantus will be the land which was historically theirs. He also said that it was to be the land set out in 1913 and 1936, the scheduled areas. A big strip of land is now in the process of being purchased on the western side of the Buffalo River as part of the land mentioned in the schedule to the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill which was passed this Session. It is a very big strip of land which was not scheduled land. Now, what must we believe? We are told from the Government benches that the Bantu will get the scheduled land, and yet this very Session we passed a Bill containing a schedule which comprises very big areas of land which was not scheduled in 1956. But what worries me is this. I have just learnt that the Government is negotiating for the purchase of land on the eastern side of the banks of the Fish River. That land was not scheduled land. In this contradictory position nobody knows what to do in that area.

I just want to point out that the land referred to in the 1936 Act does not cover only scheduled areas.

There is another contradiction again. The hon. member for Kempton Park told us that scheduled land would be bought, and now that hon. member, who should know something about it, tells us exactly the opposite. That is the difficult position we are in. While we have these difficulties in getting anything definite from the Government, there is one head of a Government in South Africa who does know what he wants. I refer to Chief Matanzima, and he says that he wants all the land on the eastern side of the Fish River. Now we find that the Government, contrary to what they have told us, is buying land along the Fish River which was not scheduled land. It is obvious that Chief Matanzima is playing the bagpipes and the Government is dancing to his tune. Surely it must be obvious to everyone that there is a private pact between the Minister and Chief Matanzima, a private pact for a quid pro quo. Matanzima has asked for the land along the Fish River and he is getting it as a quid pro quo for advocating Government policy. That is in reply to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand), who said that the United Party is disappointed at the success of the policy of apartheid of the Government. It is not a question of being disappointed. We are not surprised because it is obvious that there is a pact with Matanzima by which he is to get that land. If that is the price we have to pay when one chief bids against our Government in a bull market, I wonder what the position will be when we have seven such chiefs bidding in the same way.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) has repeated the old refrain: Show us the borders. That is a very old song. If only he would page through the Hansards, he would see that this matter has been discussed for the past five years or longer, and the replies have very clearly been given, but the United Party has to-day revealed a bankruptcy such as I have never seen before on that side of the House. Here we have again had the old story about the borders, and that party also recognizes the Bantu homelands. Then they should set the example, and let them tell us how they want the homelands to be. [Interjections.] We have so often said that there we have the Bantu areas, and they are defined in terms of the Acts of 1913 and 1936; there are the released areas which have to be purchased. Most of those areas are well defined, and we said that we were following the policy of consolidation. Where people feel that it is better to consolidate in this way, we help them, and we do so with the co-operation of all the agricultural unions practically throughout South Africa. But now I ask the hon. member for East London (North) and other hon. members who raised this point: If they are so concerned about the borders of the homelands why do they not set the example and define those homelands? But they know it is nonsensical. Here we have a process of consolidation and this will still last for an appreciable time, because one has to take into account all the interests concerned. One must take into account the interests of the farmers and of the Bantu in this process of consolidation. It is a natural process.

But the hon. member for East London (North) made one very unsavoury remark. He wanted to know whether a secret agreement perhaps existed between the Minister and Matanzima. I just want to tell him that I do not make myself guilty of that sort of thing and he should not voice such suspicions. The hon. member is an honourable man and I do not want to give him the reply he deserves, but there is no such thing. But remember that Matanzima was reported by the newspapers as having said these things, and I replied to them, and ten to one Matanzima had in mind those Bantu areas adjoining the Transkei, and that they would in time be added to the Bantu area. And that is our policy. Whether geographically they will be added to the Transkei now or later is a different matter, but it is obvious that in time they will all be linked with the Transkei, at least politically. That is the natural thing. I do not think anyone objects to it, but why sow all this suspicion against Matanzima? It is not fair.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). His second speech also surprised me to-day. He said a few things to which I want to reply. In the first place he asked whether the position of the Coloureds would be dealt with in the report of the Heckroodt Commission. I can only say that I have already instructed the Heckroodt Commission to investigate the position of the Coloureds also. I expected that this matter would have been finalized already, but I am still awaiting their report. But I want to say immediately that I cannot see how there can be much difference in the approach to the position of the Coloureds from that of the Whites. The hon. member asked when a start would be made with the zoning of the non-White towns in the Transkei. I can only say that I appointed the commission and gave them instructions to start work as soon as possible. Where precisely they will start is their own affair. I give them a fairly free hand. I asked them to get together as soon as possible to decide on a modus operandi, and my further request to them was that they should give careful consideration to the interests of the Whites in the areas concerned. Now the hon. member is suddenly concerned about the interests of the Bantu. He is playing a political game. The fact is that I have already stated that the Secretary of the Interior is a member of that commission and he can represent those people, and it is obvious that everybody’s interests will be taken into consideration. The commission will submit their recommendations to me and then I will take the final decision.

The hon. member again spoke about White capital and initiative. He knows what my policy is. The White Paper puts it clearly. But the matter about which we argue is this. He is always stressing the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission, but the fact is that the commission said that the industrialist who establishes an industry in the Bantu areas should hand it over to the Bantu after a few years. I then said that I had never yet met an industrialist who was prepared to do so.

Anton Rupert referred to it.

The hon. member should not drag Anton Rupert in here. He is not here to state his case. I asked the hon. member whether he would do such a thing, and he was not prepared to do so. While I sat on the Tomlinson Commission I had my doubts in that regard, because one will never find an industrialist who will build up a business and then hand it over to the Bantu [Interjections.] The hon. member says Anton Rupert would do it, but he has quite a different system. We want to preserve those areas for the Bantu. We have so often already said that one of the main things which cause racial conflict is the idea that the Whites exploit all the natural resources for themselves, and that is why we have to guard against it.

The hon. member again referred to Bantu authorities and asked why more such authorities had not yet been instituted. But the hon. member does not know what is going on. Practically all the large ethnic groups already have their territorial authorities, except the Zulus, and the Zulus already have so many regional authorities that I could start establishing a territorial authority to-morrow. The other groups all have them, with the exception of the Swazis, who form a small group and who prefer to work together with the Tsongas. The Deputy Minister has already replied to the other matters raised by the hon. member.

I should now like to come to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). It is a pity that he is not here now, because he should really defend his standpoint. I do not even want to talk about the way in which he launched his attack, because it does not redound to the credit of a Member of Parliament who is also a lawyer. He said at Wepener that he wanted to warn the people of the Free State that the Government had decided that the whole of the conquered territory would be handed over to Basutoland. Can one imagine a responsible Member of Parliament making such a statement in public? It is very irresponsible. Apart from the fact that he tried to embarrass the Government, it is wrong to tell the people of Basutoland things like that. [Interjection.] The hon. the Prime Minister stated his standpoint very clearly, and anyone who wishes to draw a different inference from it does so maliciously and not honestly. The historic areas are determined in the Acts of 1913 and 1936. That is why we have always spoken about the historic areas. If we are to give this interpretation to it, what will then happen to South Africa? Every baboon will then be able to claim a place in South Africa. But the hon. member knows as well as any other hon. member in this House that the Prime Minister has always said that this establishment of Bantu areas merely grants recognition to an historical process. It is an historical process; history has resulted in those areas being there. It is not the National Party which put the Bantu heartland there. Now is it fair of a responsible Member of Parliament to make such a statement?

But is it not logical to say …

That hon. member has no manners. One should at least display some courtesy in this House.

The hon. member asked what the Prime Minister meant when he spoke about the difficult task in Natal. That is what he said. The hon. member should not forget that there are a number of Black spots in Natal which give us trouble to-day. Who are the people who oppose the removal of those Black spots? In many instances the fight is led by the United Party members. Now that we are removing those Black spots we are being opposed. But I want to mention another example. Certain United Party Members of Parliament and certain United Party Senators took it upon themselves to go and see whether they could not perhaps find a solution, whether they could not perhaps evolve a proper plan for Natal, and in the end they quarrelled so much that they just left the matter there and we never heard about it again. I refer to that group of people at Empangeni. They often got together; here I want to mention particularly the name of Senator Pretorius. They met repeatedly but they could find no solution. That shows how difficult the position in Natal is. But I have no doubt that we will solve that problem also. We are not going to be deterred from clearing up those Black spots. I may just say that the Bantu everywhere are grateful to me for eliminating these Black spots. Look at the great fuss which was made here in regard to Besterspruit. There the position was that there was hardly any site where people had not been buried. But the people remained on those plots; they used the water available in the vicinity. A plague could have broken out. To-day the Bantu are grateful for what we did, but there are certain Whites who are ungrateful.

The hon. member for Zululand, who has now come back, went further and quoted from a map which appeared in the Burger and the Volksblad, a map of the Tomlinson Commission. What is wrong with that map? The Tomlinson Commission merely indicated the possible methods whereby consolidation could take place. In order to obviate ambiguity we decided to draw a broad line, and not a fine line which would indicate the precise borders.

Much too broad for my liking.

What right has the hon. member to say here that that was indicated to be the borders? The hon. member said: There is the map; there is the border-line, and that border-line indicates what the areas will be.

I quoted what the newspaper said.

But the newspaper said nothing wrong in that respect. It merely said that the Tomlinson Commission had indicated the borders in that way as a possible basis of consolidation, but that does not mean that they are the final borders. What right has the hon. member to say that it is the policy of the Government to hand over to Basutoland parts of our White areas? Surely that is unreasonable.

Then what does the Prime Minister’s speech in Durban mean?

I have already dealt with that. It is unreasonable of an hon. member who is a lawyer to make such points. There is at least some logic in the law, but the hon. member has revealed no logic here; what he has said here is just petty politicking and nothing more. It is unreasonable of the hon. member to get on to a platform, as he did in Wepener, and to give the people there the assurance that the conquered territory would now be handed back to Basutoland. This sort of thing does not build up a party! The result is that those people are to-day ridiculing him. A responsible Member of Parliament cannot make such statements. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition laughs about it. I can quite understand it. It is a sign of political bankruptcy.

I just want to pause to deal for a moment with the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). She said that we were developing the Bantu areas in all kinds of underhand ways, and that we were even opposing development in the White areas. She referred to Ladysmith and Utrecht, etc. I want to ask the hon. member whether she has read the latest report in regard to the development of the Tugela basin.

Yes.

Then I cannot understand why the hon. member talks such nonsense here. What is more, Sir, do you know that the Whites of those areas came to see me in Durban and unanimously requested me to consider extending Msinga to the river; then they will be near enough for the development of a large industrial complex between Colenso and Ladysmith, and then Ladysmith and Colenso will not be burdened with the development of locations? It is a great saving to them. The people there unanimously requested this. It will also solve a great problem for me. Msinga is really one of our great problems. If we can develop a great industrial complex there, we will at the same time have employment for the people of Msinga, and then many of these difficulties there can be eliminated. All I said was that, in the light of these findings by this body in regard to the development of the Tugela basin and in the light of the wishes of the people there, I was busy investigating the whole matter to see whether we could not meet the wishes of those people. We have the hearty co-operation of all the bodies and all the people there, including the Natal Agricultural Union. Can you imagine, Sir, a Member of Parliament getting up here and blaming me for it? I thought the hon. member would get up and thank me …

That will be the day!

Nobody has thanked you yet to-day.

The hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) raised the matter of a low rate of interest on the loan to Edenvale in connection with the removal of the Bantu in the location there. He also asked that a concession should be made in regard to the road giving access to it. This matter has already been submitted to me and it is receiving consideration. The Deputy Minister is giving special attention to it. We will see whether we cannot meet the wishes of the Town Council. But I want to take this opportunity of expressing a special word of thanks to the hon. member for Edenvale. He went to a lot of trouble in regard to this matter. He did his best to get this matter solved, and I am grateful to him for it. I think we are now practically on the verge of finding a solution, but I shall do my best to see whether that concession cannot be made to Edenvale.

Then I just want to come to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). I am surprised to see all the people who are emerging as farmers’ representatives. I want to warn the hon. member that he should first make certain of his facts. It is not the first time that the hon. member has made such a bad blunder in this House. This is what happened. Those people asked me to buy the area. I refused. They first asked my predecessor, the hon. the Prime Minister, and he said that it would be considered if unanimity could be achieved. Eventually they were unanimous, and I then decided to buy that area. As usual, I negotiated with the farmers’ association, and they had no objection; they were quite satisfied. Eventually the question of the border line cropped up. The farmers’ association wanted the border line along the mountain. A number of these people wanted the border line to be below the mountain; they wanted the road to be the border. I asked the farmers’ association to meet these people again and to see whether a solution could not be found. They informed me that they had done everything in their power; that this was their proposal, and then the matter was finalized. I then asked the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha), seeing that he was going to Rustenburg, to get into contact with the farmers’ association and then to meet the people there, together with the representatives of the farmers’ association, to see whether they could not come to an agreement. I like to do what is in the interest of the majority of the people.

But they decided that unanimously.

The farmers’ association took that decision, not the people there. I said there was a difference of opinion in regard to the borderline. I have had the experience of a mountain line being very dangerous. I had that experience in the Magaliesberge, near Rustenburg. The Bantu set fire to their veld and then the whole of the White area bums out. The position was so bad at Magaliesberg that I was eventually compelled to remove those Bantu and to make it a White area. The Whites simply could not farm there any longer. That is a lesson I learned there, and it was a very dear lesson. I then asked the hon. member for Rustenburg to get into touch with the farmers’ association and to meet the people there in order to see whether they could not achieve unanimity in regard to this matter. He went there but the agricultural union in Rustenburg simply turned their backs on him. They said they would not agree; that they had already made their recommendations. He met the people there and they were practically unanimous.

But the hon. member denied it to-day.

He did not.

No. The fact is that the hon. member for Rustenburg thereafter handed me a written report.

He said that he handed you a verbatim report.

I discussed the whole matter with him and then decided that I would go there myself, together with my officials and a person who knows the country there very well, viz. Senator Combrinck. We inspected the whole place. We found that the people in the area were of the opinion that the road would be the most effective border, because there was a wire fence on both sides of the road. We discovered in the past that a road constitutes a very effective borderline. The road is not far from the mountain. We then made the road the borderline, and all the people are satisfied, except a few who live far outside that area. The people in the area are all satisfied; they all offered their land for sale. They are quite happy and I have had no complaint from any of them. How can the hon. member therefore make such allegations here?

The difference was over the fixing of the boundaries for the entire area. This is only one example. I have a memorandum here from the agricultural union which they sent to the Minister and in which they say that they were completely dissatisfied with the decision.

What is your question?

Order!

I received that memorandum from the farmers’ association. I also personally met some of the people there. Those people were dissatisfied about the borderline indicated by the farmers’ association. I repeat that I have no difficulty of any sort to-day. All those people offered their land for sale and most of the land has been purchased. There are perhaps a few farms which have not been purchased yet, but I am experiencing no difficulty. There was absolute unanimity. There are only a few members of the farmers’ association who are dissatisfied.

What about the leaders of the agricultural unions?

They interviewed me in my office. They had already previously submitted their findings to me. Therefore I thought it was better for me to go there to investigate the matter. I am convinced that the best thing possible was done. I am experiencing no difficulties. It is only a few members of the agricultural union who are dissatisfied because we did not accept their recommendations. I told them frankly that the agricultural union was not the only body whom I had to consider, but that the public and other bodies were also concerned in it. I must consult everybody, and not only the agricultural union. That is what some people cannot understand. I want to advise the hon. member to make sure of his facts before he raises such matters again.

I did.

Then the hon. member should not do such an ugly thing as to call somebody else a liar. He knows nothing about it.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) put a few questions to me. He asked me in the first place whether it was my policy always to keep the corridor open. The hon. member knows it is our policy to join up the White areas as far as possible. These matters are being reconsidered. In this regard the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union is cooperating splendidly. Their secretary visited me the other day and we discussed many of these matters. The hon. member also referred to the illegal squatting. I think that is a problem in the Eastern Cape which is fast being solved. We are, however, devoting attention to it continuously.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) asked whether it was fair that I should expropriate the land of the people at Peddie. I can just tell him this. A few farmers offered their land. The easiest method would have been to expropriate, and everything would have been completed, but then members of the agricultural union came to see me and said that they had certain problems and I must leave the matter there. That land is included in the Bantu legislation we passed. However, I listened to the representations of the agricultural union and took out that piece of land. We shall go into the whole matter again before taking any decisions. You see, therefore, Sir, that where it is in any way possible, I work together with the relevant bodies. In a few cases we proceeded to expropriate, more particularly because that would be in the interests of the persons concerned. Here and there were cases where we were compelled to expropriate, in spite of the feelings of the people concerned.

In regard to the Corridor, did I understand the Minister correctly to say in reply to the hon. member for King William’s Town, that he is consulting with the agricultural unions in that area, in other words, that the borders have not been finally determined yet?

About three weeks ago the members of the Agricultural Union of the Eastern Cape interviewed me in my office. We discussed all these matters fairly fully. I can assure the hon. member that we always consult them. Unfortunately the co-operation previously was not as hearty as it is now, but we have come to an agreement. They promise their full co-operation. It is our policy to keep the Corridor open as far as possible. Hon. members know that wherever possible I give assistance. If they know of cases which have not come to my notice—I cannot be everywhere—it is their duty to inform me. Our policy embraces certain principles which we must implement, if practicable.

I just want clarity in regard to the 1913 and 1936 areas. Did the Minister say that the word “historical” is attached to the 1913 and 1936 areas, and that the historical Bantu areas are exclusively the 1913 and 1936 areas?

The 1913 Act really gives the historical concept of the areas as they then were. The 1936 Act only adds to it.

Does history begin there?

Do not ask such clever questions. The history begins in 1652. When we talk of the historical process and the Bantu areas which are determined by the historical process, those are the areas dealt with in the 1913 Act. They were delineated in that way in the Cape Province at the time, and also in the Free State. There was a special commission which delineated it in the Transvaal, and also in Natal. The 1936 Act only made certain additions. That is already history too.

Can the border lines more or less be indicated on the proposed plans for the area?

I have dealt with that. The hon. member’s party also recognizes Bantu homelands. Has his party laid down the borders already? The hon. member should advise his party to lay down their borders, and then they can reproach us. To a large extent the heartlands have been delineated, and there is no difficulty about that. A process of consolidation is in progress. It will take some time before it is completed. It is something which I do in consultation with the public which is interested in it. No political party can do more. It is unreasonable of the hon. member to sound the same discordant note continuously. That note has become so out of tune already that nobody listens to it any more. Hon. members do not take any more notice of it, and the public even less.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.