I am pleased to have the opportunity of putting a small matter right. I refer to the uncalled for attack made on me last Friday afternoon by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) when this Vote was under discussion. I regard his remarks as unnecessary interference with the affairs of the Marico constituency; he unnecessarily poked his nose into the affairs of that constituency. He said the following, inter alia, and I want to quote his exact words—

He then went further and launched a personal attack on me. I think it is necessary for me to put matters right in that regard because he said the following, inter alia—

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.

That is a distortion of the truth to say the least of it.

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

Mr. Chairman, I say it is a distortion of the truth. I am not saying that he told a lie.

Order! It amounts to the same thing. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. Mr. Chairman, that proves that the hon. member who says there is seething discontent in the Marico constituency is a frustrated person. There is consternation and frustration in his own mind; he is on the run; he is packing his bags to run away from Turffontein because he knows his party will not again nominate him as their candidate. We know that they have made him play second fiddle to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) as far as railway matters, on which he used to be the main speaker, are concerned. He is running away and he seeks refuge in personal attacks.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Vote.

I only want to correct an allegation that has been made against me. It concerns the determination of the boundaries of the Tswana homeland in my constituency. In this connection he is supposed to have challenged me to appear with him on the same platform. The fact of the matter is that he asked me here in the Lobby whether he could appear with me on the platform when I held my series of meetings to report to my constituents in order to state his attitude and that of the United Party, that we should thus hold report meetings together. I summarily refused to have anything to do with it and said that nothing of the kind could be done, that the idea could not be entertained of having a Member of Parliament of the Opposition on a Nationalist platform when reporting to your constituents. I told him he could attend those meetings to ask questions. The hon. member also said I had refused to allow United Party members to attend our meetings. I can tell the hon. member that there have been more United Party members than Nationalists at some of my meetings and they passed a motion of confidence and not of no confidence in me, for example, at the meeting at Engelsberg.

The hon. member has done enough explaining. He must return to the Vote.

Then I return to the allegations made under the Vote. He said there was seething discontent amongst the farmers in connection with the boundaries of the Bantu homelands. That is not so. What is indeed true, and I am realistic enough to admit this, is that individual farmers as well as agricultural societies have, from time to time, discussed matters with me and said (just as the head committee of the Transvaal Agricultural Union said to the Minister), it would be a very good thing if the Minister would determine those boundaries; but that there is seething discontent is not true. All the Black spots in the Marico constituency have been removed, or are in the process of being removed, by way of consultation and negotiation and I have the assurance of the Minister in writing that no more farms are required in the Swartruggens and Marico districts for the establishment of homelands for the Tswanas. There have been negotiations right from the start and I acted as mediator between the farmers’ organizations, the party organizations and the Minister. I invited the then Deputy Minister, Mr. Mentz to meet the farmers throughout the constituency. He did so and there was general satisfaction. In the specific area to which the hon. member for Turffontein has referred the public gathered en masse and decided unanimously (and they put this to Deputy Minister Mentz) that not one additional morgen of land should be purchased. That was during 1960. Last year a few farmers again offered their farms. I invited the chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission, the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) to meet the farmers and we travelled through the whole constituency and had satisfactory discussions with the representatives of farmers’ unions. There was calm discussion of the boundary problem but nothing of the seething discontent to which the hon. member has referred. I can tell the hon. member that the Nationalists of Marico, like those of the whole country, have for a long time fought and waited for the policy of separate development to be carried out and they are willing to wait longer for it to develop completely. They are sensible enough to realize that no Government can at this stage immediately define permanent boundaries. There will be seething discontent and consternation if the Government were to fix boundaries that cannot be moved over the whole country to-day. The hon. member said he had a small farm in my constituency. That shows you that he is running away from Turffontein. He wanted to join the National Party, did he not? He probably wanted to avail himself of those meetings to introduce himself there, but what can the National Party do with a member of his calibre? He says even the position of his farm, which is about 30 miles from the Bantu border, is uncertain. He does not know how soon he will have a Black neighbour. Sir, that is the old story, because of the provincial council election next year the Bantu story is dished out to the people at every meeting that the entire area will form part of the proposed Tswanaland. It is the old story we have heard over and over again in Marico. Only recently three farms which were Black spots near the small farm which the hon. member wants to use as a springboard when he runs away from Turffontein, were removed. Would it be logical on the part of the Minister first to remove Black spots and then to declare the whole area a Bantu homeland? Surely that is ridiculous and illogical. [Time limit.]

May I ask for the privilege of the half hour, Sir? The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) will in due course get a reply from another hon. member on this side. So far a great deal has been said in this debate by the Government side which amounts to this that the Government is running away from the implications of its policy whereas the Minister has said in this debate that he accepts the full implications of the apartheid policy of the Government. To give a few examples of how the Government is running about from the implications of its policy, when this side of the House repeatedly asked where the boundaries were going to be, the Minister posed a totally new question. He said: Surely the United Party accepts Bantu homelands; tell us where your borders are. But the Minister ought to know that in terms of the United Party policy borders are completely secondary. That they must be defined is not a prerequisite of our policy in which the emphasis is placed on the racial group and not on his area.

What about the Transkei?

Before the Bantu can be led to freedom in separate states the borders have to be very clearly defined. This uncertainty about the borders can still cause the biggest eruption in this country. [Interjections.] The hon. member says it is nonsense but it is necessary to remind the hon. member of the philosophical words the Prime Minister used in January 1962 when he told us that separate states would have to be developed. Later in the same speech the Prime Minister said—

In the same speech the Prime Minister gave Africa as an example, Africa where they had obtained satisfaction in that states were created with clearly defined borders which did not cut across the area of other national states. It was not the United Party, therefore, who demanded that, but the Prime Minister himself. If we want separate states in this country we must have clearly defined borders which do not cut across other national areas. That statement very clearly tied the Government to the idea of separate states with separate freedoms but it recoils from the prerequisites to those states, namely, clearly defined borders. In reply to the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) the Minister said the question of the borders did not constitute any problem at all; he had the fullest co-operation of the agricultural unions and farmers’ organizations. But what are the facts of the matter? At one agricultural congress after the other they ask that this matter be expedited. I have cuttings from what happened at every congress over the past few years. At every one of them the Minister was asked to determine the borders. I can quote from the Landbou Weekblad of two years ago to show that there is great uncertainty about the borders of the Bantu states. The Burger said: “Bantu homelands: Farmers say they are confused.” In 1962 when the Minister addressed the agricultural congress at Pretoria he said the borders could not yet be finally decided upon. It is obvious why people ask for the borders to be clearly defined but it is inexplicable why the Government refuses to do so. Do they lack the courage to tackle the matter? Separate states cannot succeed without clearly defined borders. While the Government is refusing to do anything about it Kaizer Matanzima is making one demand after the other, and the Government is conditioning the people of South Africa to accept a smaller South Africa while the Black nationalist of the Transkei is insisting on a bigger Transkei. Our Government does not say boo to a goose but Matanzima conditions his people to say they will not be satisfied with anything less than their historical areas.

Where do you get that from?

The hon. member for Heilbron has obviously not read the election manifesto of Matanzima last year. I want to quote from the Burger of 30 October last year—

He said the same thing at an interview granted to a number of Pressmen in November last year. While he is saying that and making one demand upon another this Government is not doing anything; it does not say boo to a goose. It is indeed true that the Government announced earlier on that the question of land and borders would be decided upon by means of negotiations between the various Governments. They said there would be a round table conference. But the fact remains that the Government’s chances of negotiating are getting smaller as the demands of the Xhosa become more insistent. Matanzima’s demands will become stronger and the stronger he states them the more difficult it will become for the Government to refuse. I sincerely trust the Government and the Minister realize in what an embarrassing position they are placing our country because of their failure to come to a decision on this matter. Because of the way it has handled this matter the Government has roused a great deal of suspicion right from the start when they said it would be decided by way of a round table conference. I say it is a pity, and this question of borders is very dangerous to our race relations. It is absolutely necessary that the Government be warned. They made irresponsible promises and to-day they are irrevocably bound to them; they cannot back out. If there are border disputes in future the Government will be to blame. It is easy to envisage a serious state of affairs. We only trust that that will not become a reality.

But I wish to refer to another matter which deserves closer analysis, and which proves that the Government is running away from the implications of its policy. The Deputy Minister gave us figures in respect of the growth rate of the Bantu in the urban areas. He said the growth rate was 4.1 per cent in the cities from 1936 to 1946, 5.1 per cent for the period 1946 to 1951 and 4.2 per cent for the period 1951 to 1964. He also gave us the figures in respect of all the areas in South Africa. The Deputy Minister boasted about the fact that they have kept the figures constant but the United Party was in power during the period 1936 to 1946. The most serious charge against that regime is precisely that it allowed the White areas to be overrun by Bantu and today that period is held out as the period in which the position was ideal. They say the position to-day is more or less what it was during the period 1936 to 1946. The Minister says that although more Bantu have been employed proportionately more Whites have also been employed. But that does not prove that fewer and fewer Bantu have been employed. It only proves the irrefutable fact that we will always have them. For the purposes of Government policy, and in order to have any basis, they must state categorically that they do not want any Bantu in the White areas. If they say that the Government would at least be logical. (Dr. Scholtz also says that in his book.)

By way of interjection the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the Deputy Minister what the position was in respect of agriculture and that he should give those figures but the Minister does not reply to that. Let us for a moment look at the increase on the platteland. Here I have the 1960 census figures, as given by the Burger, I just want to refer to a few places. Take Uitenhage. In 1951 they only had 16,900 Bantu there but in 1960 that figure had increased to 21,300. Take Klerksdorp. There the number had increased from 15,800 in 1951 to 28,500 in 1960. Take a place like Queenstown. There the number had increased from 14,000 to over 20,000. In Grahamstown the number had increased from 11,000 to 17,000. In Oudtshoorn the number of Bantu increased from 1,171 to 1,900 and in Upington there was a fantastic increase. Why did he not mention that? The Minister knows that if there is one area in the country where the numbers are completely out of proportion it is the platteland because of the increase in the number of Bantu labourers because so many Whites have left. They are apparently satisfied that the position is under control in the Western Cape and the Deputy Minister tried to prove that by giving the figures in respect of the Cape Divisional Council area, but that is not the Western Cape. There are still 250,000 Bantu west of the Eiselen line, if we include their families. If the position is under control here why do some Nationalist Members of Parliament still agitate that the Bantu should be removed from the Western Cape so that it can be a purely White man’s country? If the Minister thinks his figures are satisfactory, that they show the problem has been solved, and says there is no question of large-scale removal, we shall be very grateful to him because we know such a removal will create economic uncertainty. We know there are not sufficient other labourers to replace these people. I can refer to the figures of Professor S. P. Cilliers where he showed that there had been an increase in the number of Coloureds in the Western Cape over the past years as well as an increase in the number of Bantu. That shows that those people did not oust another racial group. One can therefore take it that if the Bantu are removed from here there will not be sufficient other labour. One can also expect other serious problems to arise in the reserves, because there is insufficient employment for them, and that great dissatisfaction and unrest will be created as a result of the removal of the Bantu from this area. For the sake of good race relations the Government should abandon that policy. We already see the signs that they cannot apply that policy without causing large-scale retrogression and stagnation in the Western Cape.

To give another example of the uncertainty regarding Government policy I wish to refer to its policy in connection with the Orange River. One member of the Nationalist Party says the Orange River complex should be free of all Bantu. The hon. member for Kempton Park said something similar and the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) told us as far back as 1962 that the Orange River complex should be free of Bantu. But having said that another Minister said the Bantu in the Western Province could assist with the Orange River scheme. It was the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs who said that in a speech at Aliwal North and while he was saying that a statement appeared in the Burger of 10 October last year that Coloureds would be given preference on the Orange River scheme. How do you understand that Sir? The one says there will not be any Bantu and the other one says all the Bantu of the Western Province should go there. If both Bantu and Coloureds are used who will be left in the Western Province to meet its needs? What is the policy of this Government regarding the Bantu in the Western Province and what is their policy going to be in respect of the Orange River scheme? I want to say this that if the Orange River scheme were to depend on the number of Coloured labourers available it would take 200 years to complete. The employment of Bantu in the White areas has been described as a parasitic policy. The hon. Minister called it the “bushtick policy”. The Bantu allows himself to be used according to his own free will. If they do not do that they simply cannot exist in the reserves. The Government must choose between making greater use of voluntary Bantu labour on the one hand or giving greater State assistance to these people so that they can make a living in their own areas. Which one does the Minister choose? The Government is opposed to economic integration in the White areas but at the same time they are doing precious little to assist the Bantu in their own Bantu areas. They apparently expect him to help himself. The assistance the Government is giving there to-day is tragically little and ineffective. If that is what they are doing how is it possible to carry out the policy of having separate states? How is it possible for the Government to remove these people from the White areas? How can the Government remove seven out of every eight farm labourers, six out of every seven on the mines and four out of every six in industry without lowering the standard of living of both White and Black, and economically that would spell chaos? Did Professor Tomlinson not predict that approximately 2,000,000 people would have to be taken off the land in the Bantu areas? What has happened to the 50,000 posts which should have been created annually in order to give them employment? That is a gigantic task and this Government has failed every year to perform it. It is impossible to have separate states without an independent economy. That can only be done if large-scale inroads are made on the ability and resources of the Whites and that would be detrimental to the country in every respect. In order to appreciate the magnitude of the task one must see it in the light of the implications and the repercussions of this policy of removing the Bantu from the Western Province. What do we find in respect of that policy? There has already been sharp reaction. Not only are the people locally sharply divided on this question but it is only sharply condemned east of the Eiselen line. Not only will stagnation follow here but the people east of the Eiselen line say they have no room for these Bantu. I want to read what Mr. Scholtz, the overseas editor of the Burger, wrote after he had travelled through the Transkei—

“You people in the Boland talk glibly about repatriating the Bantu but what must they do here? There is no work for them here.”

But hon. members say we must clear up this part of the world. In the Burger of 28 May 1963 they talk about the labour shortage in the fruit-growing industry and they say—

But they also want to remove the Bantu from this area. The removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape is only one small facet of Nationalist Party policy and that is already causing so much difficulty. How much more difficulty will not be created by making the Bantu areas viable and keeping those people there? So I can go on. Professor Cilliers asks who will do the work when these people are removed. I can also quote what the farmers’ associations on the other side of the line ask: “Congress objects to the Removal to East London.” Strong representations are made that the Bantu who are removed from the Western Cape should not come to that area because there is neither room nor work for them there. Then the Government tell us they are busy with a practical policy, a policy that can be carried out. If it is impossible for them to carry out this policy of moving the people how much more impossible will it not be for them to carry out the policy of greater apartheid in South Africa. I maintain that the policy of this Government will fail because of two irrefutable and contradictory facts, namely, the practical circumstances prevailing in the country which demand a sustained economic tempo of development in the White areas and the theoretical state this Government is creating for the Bantu in his own homeland, a state which is not viable. That is why the policy of this Government will fail and that is why the people will be obliged to accept a practical policy as the one suggested by the United Party.

When I said in the course of the debate last Friday that the accusation made by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) was a lie I did not mean that he was telling a lie because he wanted to tell a lie. I meant that his information was incorrect but if my remark has been differently interpreted from what I intended it to mean, I gladly withdraw it.

I shall not say much about what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) said a moment ago because he talked a lot of nonsense. He alleged, for example, that all the Bantu were going to be removed from the Western Cape. But I leave him at that. There are other members on this side who are only too anxious to deal with him.

Sir, as you know, I represent a constituency in which there are many Bantu areas and it is obvious, therefore, that many White farms in that area border on those areas. For many years those farmers have wanted a proper fence between the White and non-White areas. When I talk about a proper fence I mean a vermin-proof fence. I know what I am talking about, Sir. I myself farmed on one of those border farms and I know the difficulties one has to contend with. The Bantu farmer has not yet developed a sense of responsibility. I am not saying that applies to all Bantu farmers but it applies to most of them. The result is that their stock, particularly their goats and sheep, graze wherever they want to. They come into the White areas and they destroy the gardens and agricultural lands of those White farmers. You can realize how strained the relationship is between the Bantu farmer and the White farmer in those circumstances. Such a fence would serve a dual purpose. In the first place such a fence will prevent the stock of the Bantu farmers from crossing over to the property of the White farmers, and vice versa, but in the second place such a fence will be a deterrent to stock theft. As the position is today it is very easy simply to uproot a number of iron standards, flatten the fence, and to chase your cattle over the fence and replace the iron standards but that will not be so easy in the case of a vermin-proof fence. That is much more obvious. In the second place I want to ask the hon. the Minister to erect such a fence at the expense of the Department of Bantu Administration. I shall tell you why I am asking that. The market value of farms bordering on Bantu area is less than the market value of farms which do not border on such areas, for the very reason I have just mentioned, namely, the continual crossing over of stock and stock theft. I go so far as to suggest that if Bantu Administration will provide the material the White farmers on the adjoining farms will erect the fence. Sir, every year we pass new laws in this House in an attempt to create a better relationship between White and non-White. Here we have a golden opportunity of doing so. If we erect such a fence there I am sure there will be hearty cooperation between White and non-White.

I am not going to reply to the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. du Plessis). He asked that a fence be erected between White and non-White areas. I once had a neighbour who said one’s best neighbour were 14 strands of barbed wire. The hon. member for Kuruman apparently also thinks that 14 strands of barbed wire is the best fence you can have between a White area and a Bantu area and between the farms acquired by the Department of Bantu Administration and the farms of White farmers. I can, however, tell him that irrespective of the number of barbed wire strands the fence has, the moment a farm is acquired by Bantu Administration for Bantu occupation the adjoining White farmers immediately also want to sell their farms.

But I want to return to the accusation levelled last Friday by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development at this party, namely, that the United Party was politically bankrupt as far as a Bantu policy was concerned. He adopted the attitude that the best form of defence was attack. He asked why the United Party did not announce where their borders were going to be. Mr. Chairman, let me put it this way: The biggest catastrophe that can hit this country is for this Government to remain in power much longer. When this party comes into power we shall see to it that the necessary line of demarcation between White and non-White farms is established. That will be sufficient time to serve the hon. Minister with a reply to that sort of argument. I wish to return the ball to the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration. I want to accuse him and the Government of being politically bankrupt because a Government which establishes a Bantustan, as this Government did in the Transkei, and which continually assures both the Whites and the Bantu that that Bantustan will ultimately enjoy complete independence and which is not in a position to say where the borders are to be, is guilty of political bankruptcy. I want to go further. This sort of policy borders on political deception. I do not want to refer to the establishment of other Bantu areas; I want to take the Transkei as example, a Bantustan whose borders have not yet been defined although a Parliament has already been established there, a Parliament whose ministers have certain powers and who have been promised that they will ultimately be completely independent. Sir, if that does not border on political deception I do not know what political deception is. I want to go further. The hon. the Minister said—and I refer specifically to the Transkei—that the consolidation of the Bantu areas which was taking place there was being done with the co-operation of the White farmers. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the farming community in the Transkei are the only people who should be taken into account in this regard? What about the big city of East London? Should the citizens of East London not be taken into account? When the hon. the Minister was asked whether the corridor around East London would remain open he gave the categorical assurance on behalf of the Government that that corridor would always remain open. He said the Government would do its best to see to it that it remained open. We are dealing here with a great city like East London and East London is entitled to an assurance from the Government that the corridor will be kept open but when the Minister is asked to give that assurance we get this negative reply from him that the Government will do its best in this connection. Does the hon. the Minister not think East London is entitled to demand that the corridor be kept open? Or must East London become an island surrounded by Bantu areas? Does the hon. Minister think that is the correct way to act towards the White people of East London? I want to take the argument further. To which group do these Bantu who are now being removed from the Western Province belong? Surely most of them are Xhosas; in other words, their homeland is either the Transkei or the Ciskei.

I thought you said they were not being removed?

Surely it is Government policy to remove as many Bantu as possible from the Western Cape. In that case they have to go to either the Ciskei or the Transkei. Does the hon. Minister really think the Whites in that area should just take it for granted that the Bantu should be removed from the Western Province and sent to the Transkei or the Ciskei and that the corridor must ultimately disappear, because the hon. the Minister cannot give us the assurance that the corridor will remain open. The hon. the Minister repeatedly said that consolidation would take place in co-operation with the farmers’ associations, organized agriculture, and the Bantu. I want to know this from the hon. the Minister: What about the area which is not farming area? Must they just be satisfied? I go further and say that the people who are to be removed from the Western Cape and who have to go to the Ciskei or the Transkei are not only Bantu; they constitute the labour force of the Republic. They are human beings before they are labourers. They are also the people who assisted in bringing about the prosperity this country is enjoying at the moment. They constitute the labour force on which the prosperity of the whole country, particularly that of the White, rests. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will give us the categorical assurance that for the sake of the city of East London he will see to it that the corridor will remain there, that it will remain a part of the White area and that East London will not become an isolated island. In conclusion I repeat that this policy of the Government, this policy of fragmentation, this policy of dividing the country and of cutting areas off the White area and adding them to the individual Bantu areas, is not a policy which the United Party can or will support. It is not necessary for the United Party, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) has said, to draw border lines; it is the policy of the United Party to keep the 16,000,000 inhabitants of this country as close together as possible; people with a common loyalty to a common fatherland and not a divided loyalty to nine fatherlands.

We have for the past few days, and to-day again, been witnessing the final death throes of the United Party in this House. Hon. members of the Opposition are trying to make a final desperate attempt to thwart the Government’s policy of separate development and to put the last spanner in the works of the separation of residential areas here in the Republic of South Africa. Sir, the Opposition have failed completely, and the nation has rejected them completely. They have been rejected not only by the White people of the country, but also by the non-Whites. The National Party at the present time is emancipating the non-White races in this country, without the chaos that accompanies this process of emancipation in other parts of Africa. Here in the Republic of South Africa we are now building up a new nation, and the Opposition are embittered because they are not sharing in this building up of this nation. We have for many years been struggling here in South Africa with this problem of race relations, and at the moment we are achieving fame in the world; we are proving to the world that we have a solution to this thorny problem. As against that, the United Party on the other hand are making belittling, disparaging remarks about the Government’s policy of separate development because they realize that the Government is now solving this problem in an orderly, peaceful way. They are jealous of that, because they realize we are finding a solution to the problem of peaceful co-existence. Sir, the nation has chosen, and the nation has chosen the way of separation. The people have chosen that there should be separation between the various races here in the Republic of South Africa, but instead of helping the Government the United Party is busy sowing suspicion and whipping up the emotions of the people outside. Instead of helping the Government, hon. members come along here with the kind of speech we had to listen to a moment ago. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has asked that the boundaries of the Bantu areas should be fixed. Sir, surely that is only a minor part of the great problem we are faced with. Instead of helping to solve the problem, he wants to drag us further into the mud. I want to tell the Opposition to-day that we no longer need their assistance, because we ourselves are busy solving that problem without their assistance. When the world accepted the policy of equality of nations, when it said that there had to be equality between all people on earth, we realized that we would have to heed the call and the demand of the Black man to be emancipated. The Black man also has certain national aspirations. We realized that if we wished to do justice to the Black man and simultaneously wished to protect the White man in the Republic of South Africa, we definitely could not adopt the policy of equality of the United Party. Being prepared to accept the policy of territorial separation, we at the same time secured the future of the White man here in the Republic. I should like to tell the Opposition to-day that the greatest step forward we have witnessed in the Republic was the recent opening of the Parliament of the Transkeian Government. I should like to say thank you this afternoon, on behalf of the people outside, to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and all his officials who had a hand in that great step forward. We have taken a step here for which posterity will be thankful to us, because we are establishing racial peace here in the Republic of South Africa. I enjoyed the privilege of attending the opening of the Transkeian Parliament, and I should like to tell hon. members of the Opposition that the Bantu in the Transkei are imbued with the idea of building on the foundation laid by this Government, for the benefit of the inhabitants of that territory. When we as Whites are helping to bring about this process of emancipation without chaos being created, it is treachery on the part of the Opposition to try to put this last spanner in the wheel of territorial separation. I want to tell them that they can no longer stop this wagon; the wagon is going on; the inhabitants of the Transkei have accepted territorial separation. They regard it as the only solution; they regard it as the only way to be followed if they wish to achieve something of value to themselves.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) referred to the figures quoted here by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister has stated here that he would like to refer to the state of affairs in 1948 when the United Party was in power, and he then compared the position under the United Party régime with the position under the regime of the Nationalist Government. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he can compare the industrial development that took place before 1948 with the industrial development that has taken place under this Government. Sir, if their policy had to be applied today, what chaos would there not have been in the Republic of South Africa! I should like to read what has been said by a prominent person who knows something about Bantu administration in this country (translated)—

This policy we have pursued will see to it that there will be racial peace in this country. It is a policy which will ensure that White and non-White will be able to live together in peace and in harmony in this country. I should like to put this question to hon. members opposite who refer to the establishment of border industries so disparagingly: Is it not a fact that the Government is busy developing the Transkei to the utmost? Is it not a basic fact that one first has to reclaim and build up the agricultural land of the Transkei? Is this Government not now developing the agricultural areas of the Transkei into one of our best agricultural regions in the Republic of South Africa? Is it not a fact that all the other things will then automatically follow? But the United Party wishes to create chaos there at the present time. They desire border industries to come into existence overnight, and that factories should be established overnight in the Transkei, without the Bantu having acquired the requisite knowledge and skill. This Government will solve the current problems without the co-operation of the United Party. They are merely jealous because they had no share in this tremendous step forward taken by the Government. I should like to tell the Opposition that the world will still come to us to learn how to live together in peace in a multiracial country such as South Africa, and we shall gladly give that recipe to the outside world. [Time limit.]

Before I reply to the hon. Maruti from Groblersdal I want to say that I appreciate very much …

Order! The hon. member must not refer in that way to another hon. member.

Let me amend that then by saying “the hon. gentleman” who represents Marico (Mr. Grobler). Before I reply to the hon. member I would like to say that I appreciate the explanation to-day by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha). But at the same time in offering that explanation the hon. member said that he had his doubts about the evidence which I had placed before this Committee on Friday when I said that there was discontent and dissatisfaction amongst organized agriculture at the attitude which is at present adopted by the Minister. Sir, I wanted to spare the hon. member for Rustenburg this evidence in the debate on Friday but in view of the fact that he has now doubted my words I wish to place this evidence before the Committee and tell the Committee what document I was quoting from. I quoted from a memorandum submitted by the District Agricultural Union of the hon. member’s own constituency to the Bantu Affairs Committee of the Transvaal Agricultural Union. I am sure the hon. member will not be pleased now when I tell him what organized agriculture, representative of all farmers’ associations in his constituency, think of the attitude which the hon. gentleman adopted in respect of this very important matter. Sir, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the hon. member’s constituency as well as in the Marico constituency in regard to the fixing of the boundaries of the proposed Tswanaland. I just want to quote one or two extracts from this memorandum submitted to the Transvaal Agricultural Union on 30 October last year. They refer here to the undertaking which was given by the hon. the Minister in October 1960 that before the boundaries were fixed for these proposed Bantustans he would take into consideration the views of organized agriculture, and that the consolidation of these areas would take place on a basis of co-operation with the farmers in the areas concerned. This is what the Rustenburg District Agricultural Union says in that regard—

In other words, they arrived at an agreement with the Minister’s officials in regard to the fixing of the boundaries of the proposed Tswanaland in the Pilansberg area. Then they go on to say this—

Sir, that fully substantiates the point I made that the Minister was ignoring the views of organized agriculture and making use of Government members in an attempt to get what he wants, and that is to fix the proposed boundaries of the Tswanaland homeland unilaterally, both in the released areas and outside of the released areas. Sir, if there is any doubt about that I want to ask the hon. member for Rustenburg why when the Minister went on a personal inspection of this area he ignored him, the public representative of the area concerned. The Minister did not even take the hon. member for Rustenburg with him when he made this personal inspection; he took Senator Combrinck with him. Why did the Minister not take the hon. member for Rustenburg with him? Because the hon. the Minister knows that the hon. member for Rustenburg has been completely discounted by all agricultural unions…[Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) must stop making these continual interjections.

The hon. the Minister knows that when the hon. member for Rustenburg, at the request of the Minister, organizer a meeting of the people who were affected, the District Agricultural Union boycotted that meeting; they refused to attend.

You are talking nonsense.

It is all very well for the hon. member to say that I am talking nonsense. The Minister knows that a resolution was sent to him which was passed by the Bantu Affairs Committee of the Transvaal Agricultural Union. If I am talking nonsense, why did they send that resolution to him? Why did the Minister reply to them that before effect could be given to that resolution it had to be placed before the Cabinet because it would mean altering the policy which they had previously announced? I challenge the hon. the Minister to say whether this resolution was adopted or not. The Minister knows that this resolution was adopted by the Transvaal Agricultural Union.

What is the date of that resolution?

Sir, the hon. member for Marico says that I must not poke my nose into the affairs of his constituency. Let me tell the hon. member that I sat here in this debate waiting for him to raise this matter in the debate in the interests of his constituency, but since he failed to do so I raised the issue across the floor of this House at the request of members of the hon. member’s own party, at the request of members of his own Dagbestuur. They know that it is quite useless to come to the hon. member for Marico because he simply says “yes” to every view expressed by the hon. Minister. The hon. member tries to cover two sides of the picture here to-day. He says it is unrealistic not to recognize that there is a demand that the boundaries of the proposed Tswanaland should be fixed so as to remove the uncertainty in the minds of the farmers in that area. He therefore by this statement admits there is discontent. He refers to the visit of a former Bantu Affairs Commissioner. Mr. Mentz was there on one occasion. Why did Mr. Mentz go there to inspect the position? The hon. member was not even a member of this House at the time. I know very well why Mr. Mentz made that inspection? He went there because there have been numerous promises in the past by the Minister’s Department to remove those Black spots like Stephaniakraal and Selonstat. Undertakings to the effect were given at the time. Have any steps been taken? Why have no steps been taken? For the simple reason that there is a strong rumour in the district that the proposed boundary of Tswanaland is going to take in some of the best farming land in the area surrounding these Black spots. And the hon. member for Marico knows this. But will he get up to defend those boundary lines here? Of course not, because that will affect his party’s standing. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. member to appear with me on the platform at any meeting in that area and to tell the people where the proposed boundary of Tswanaland is going to be. Why did the hon. member not hold any public meetings last year? Because of the seething discontent in his area; he cannot face the people of his own constituency. The hon. member talks about United Party members attending meetings; I was present at a certain meeting of the Agricultural Union of the district in which the hon. member himself farms. In my presence he got telephone calls to come and attend that meeting because the farmers wanted to know what the position was but the hon. member said he could not attend the meeting.

I hope that disposes of the hon. member. I now want to return to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] I know the hon. member for Marico is concerned about a certain gentleman who wants to stand for the nomination against him. What he is trying to do here is to set his own position right. I can tell you the name, Sir, but I do not want to drag his name across the floor of this House.

After all this hullabaloo in which nothing was actually said, I think it is necessary for us to state this matter in clear language so that we may know what really happened in Marico and Rustenburg. In the first place that memorandum to which reference has been made is one which we do not have at our disposal. It appears to be a memorandum which was sent to the Agricultural Union of the Transvaal by a certain branch. That is what I understand. Let me now put it clearly: There have for several years been negotiations in regard to the Pilansberg area. It extended over a period of three to four years. There was an investigation during the time of Mr. Mentz. Agreement was then arrived at between the Department and the farmers of Pilansberg and the District Union, in which the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) had a large share, because those people had confidence in him. It was through his mediation that an agreement was reached. That agreement was embodied in legislation last year, when that area was declared a released area by means of legislation in this House. If the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) wishes to make the allegation he made here this afternoon, the proper time to have done so would have been last year when that area was declared a released area. But at that time the hon. member apparently did not yet have that memorandum at his disposal, on which he has now built up a false case. However, I have heard that in the meantime he has acquired a small piece of land in that area and it seems to me he is now trying to set afoot an agitation there in order to get rid of his small piece of land.

That is very weak.

No, it is not weak; it is the truth. When one speaks the truth, the hon. member can only laugh it off. As regards the Marico district, I can testify this afternoon that, apart from the Mentz inquiry of several years ago, I made a tour of the whole district last year, at the invitation of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler). I visited all the places and held meetings. I held meetings together with the farmers’ associations, and I submitted a full report to the Minister. I did not come across any dissatisfaction anywhere. Representations were made for the purchase of certain farms and the excision of other farms. We investigated that matter and submitted a report.

As regards the elimination of Black spots, I may just say that most of the Black spots in the district of Rustenburg have already been eliminated. The hon. member referred to Selonstat. The hon. member does not even know that Selonstat ceased to be Bantuland a long time ago already. The hon. member is not even aware that that Black spot has already been eliminated and that the Bantu inhabitants are to be placed in a Bantu area. I know what is going on in the Rustenburg area at present. There is a certain farmers’ association whose chairman is a member of the United Party. That chairman is extremely anxious to sell his farm to Bantu administration. Those United Party members just cannot have their way, because in regard to both the Mentz Report as well as the report I submitted to the Minister last year, the Minister said he was not interested in purchasing those White farms for a Bantu area. That is the reason for the agitation in which the hon. member also participated this afternoon. I think it is wrong to do so for the benefit of a small group of people who wish to sell their land to Bantu administration. We are not interested in that land. Now the hon. member for Turffontein makes charges against the hon. member for Rustenburg and the hon. member for Marico. He says now that they are so unpopular in their districts. I went around, as I have said, Mr. Chairman, and nowhere did I find any signs of that unpopularity. In fact, the farmers’ associations did not go over the heads of those two hon. gentlemen in any way. That shows the great confidence they have in those two hon. members. I hope this is the last we shall hear of the story of the hon. member for Turffontein.

In view of the importance of the portfolio of Bantu Administration and Development I think the ignorance the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has displayed is tragic to behold. He says the reason why I have raised the question of the extent to which the hon. the Minister consults organized commerce in determining the boundaries of proposed Bantustans is because of the fact that I have a farm in that area. The hon. member said he toured the area last year but my farm is 55 miles away from the area we are discussing at the moment. The hon. member says he knows all about Selonstat. He said he was there last year. He says all the Bantu of Selonstat are already inside a Native area. That is an amazing piece of news, Sir, I am quite sure even to the hon. member for Marico. Selonstat falls in his constituency. As far as I am aware Selonstat is very much alive and kicking, so is the captain and so are all the Bantu in the area concerned, so is the school which has something like 180 pupils. I can tell the hon. member quite a lot about Selonstat. But he makes a wild statement to the effect that the majority of the Natives are inside Native areas. The hon. member obviously knows nothing about the workings of the Department. Then the hon. member for Heilbron tried to save the faces of the hon. members for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) and Marico (Mr. Grobler) by making the wild statement that what I raised here to-day was simply in regard to the discontent expressed by the chairman of a certain small farmers’ organization who belonged to the United Party. What I quoted were the views of the Rustenburg “Distrikslandbouunie”, according to the hon. member for Heilbron, the views of a small discontented farmers’ association. If the hon. member knew anything about organized agriculture he ought to know that the “Distrikslandbou-unie” had as many as 30 to 50 branches. Let me quote again the heading to the memorandum—

What is the date?

30 October 1963. This is a memorandum submitted by a responsible agricultural union in the constituency of the hon. member for Rustenburg. This memorandum was submitted to the Bantu Affairs Committee of the Transvaal Agricultural Union at its meeting on 30 October 1963. That is what I am dealing with here and not the memorandum of a little group of farmers. What resolution did they adopt? I shall read it in full because the hon. the Minister had some grave doubts about it a few minutes ago. It says this—

This was a unanimous decision—

That is the point, Mr. Chairman—

That resolution was taken at the congress of the “Landbou-unie”.

Of course. And that was again presented on 30 October last year to the Bantu Affairs Committee because of the tremendous degree of uncertainty that existed in regard to the fixing of the boundaries. That is the point and the hon. the Minister cannot escape it.

I have another memorandum here from another “Distrikslandbou-unie” from Potgietersrust supporting the same thing. Where is the hon. member for Potgietersrust? He has not put in an appearance during this debate.

There is no such member.

The hon. member’s own constituency of Potgietersrust is up in arms because of the uncertainty that exists because of the Minister’s airy-fairy promises. I now want to ask the Minister this straight-forward question across the floor of the House: In determining the boundaries of these proposed Bantustans or homelands, will he accept the recommendations of organized agriculture after full consultation with the farmers in the areas concerned? Why does the Minister not reply?

There is no seething discontent.

The hon. member for Marico comes and tells us there is no uncertainty and no seething discontent. There are hundreds of Black spots dotted all over the place in the West and North-West Transvaal. No farmer is prepared to make any capital investment because he does not see any future for himself whatsoever when it is already known that the Minister is considering buying farms outside the released areas. In other words, Sir, the position is quite clear. [Interjections.] What other conclusion can we arrive at, Sir? It means that the Minister has not got a policy in regard to fixing the boundaries of the Bantustans. There has to be uncertainty. The Minister dare not say where they are going to be placed because the Prime Minister may disagree with him. Nobody knows. My province is only one example. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) referred to the position in Natal the other day. Then the hon. member for Marico says there is no seething discontent; there is no uncertainty!

There is not.

But I have told you there is. The hon. the Minister cannot reply. I ask the Minister again to give me a straightforward undertaking: When it comes to purchasing farms in those areas where he proposes to determine the boundaries for his proposed Tswanaland will he accept the recommendations of organized agriculture after they have fully consulted the farmers concerned? It is a very straightforward question and if the hon. the Minister fails to give that reply it is clear that he has no policy in regard to the fixing of boundaries for the future Bantustans.

I did not propose to speak, but so many wrong things are being said that I feel constrained to rise. The hon. member becomes as excited as I sometimes become when he raises my ire. The questions he puts are so foolish and senseless. Surely the Government cannot be expected to delegate its powers to a humble farmers’ association. Surely it is very clear that the advice of the farmers’ associations is called for, in the same way that the advice of a Member of Parliament is asked, but it does not mean that a farmers’ association has the right to take a decision which is like the law of the Medes and the Persians. The hon. member now wants the hon. the Minister to give an assurance that he will act in terms of the decision of a farmers’ association. I then asked by way of interjection whether the Minister should also accept the decision, although it may be against the wishes of some members. He then replied in the negative.

What happened is this: The farmers’ association fixed a boundary across the mountains. A hundred members then signed a petition in which they asked that the recommendation of the farmers’ association should not be accepted because of the difficulty of controlling a boundary across a mountain top. What was the Minister to do then? Should he have satisfied the 100 dissatisfied members, or should he have followed the views of the farmers’ association or should he have tried to do something in order to get co-operation? It should be remembered that the Farmers’ Union is used for the very reason that its members belong to both parties, and in order to achieve agreement between the groups when land is purchased, namely those who wish to sell and those who do not wish to sell. The Farmers’ Union is not consulted because of their wonderful knowledge, but in order to secure the co-operation of both groups, otherwise it may begin to look like a party matter. The Minister consulted the Agricultural Union. But when the members of the Agricultural Union take the field against their own Agricultural Union, must the Minister sit still or should he try to obtain co-operation? The hon. member said on Friday that the Minister sent an agent to the Agricultural Union there. That agent was of course I.

Is that not true?

I accept that, because I did not go there as Member of Parliament; I went there as a delegate of the Minister. I went to see whether the group who signed the petition and the District Agricultural Union could not come to an agreement. The District Agricultural Union adopted the point of view adopted by the hon. member for Turffontein now, namely that they are the boss, and what they say is the law of the Medes and the Persians and everybody must subject themselves to that. That was the attitude they adopted. They did not attend that meeting. I reduced to writing everything that happened between me and the farmers and between the farmers and the Agricultural Union. They must always regard the Agricultural Union as the body they have to consult. That was proved in every discussion and in every letter. The Agricultural Union has those letters in its possession. We then met. Those who did not wish to sell stated their case and voting took place on it. Those who wished to sell moved their motion, and voting took place. The two groups voted together and there was not a single dissenting vote at that meeting. At the commencement of the meeting I protected the Agricultural Union and said that after the decision was taken, the Agricultural Union would make a proposal and explain it, but that no vote would be taken. I said that their resolution, together with the explanation, would be submitted to the Minister as it stood. I wanted to avoid having the members of the Agricultural Union who signed the petition voting against their own organization. I merely wanted an explanation as to why they desired to have a boundary across a mountain. That explanation, together with the decision of the Agricultural Union, was then submitted to the Minister by me. Does that seem such a corrupt business to the hon. member? Does that look like the act of a stupid person?

That is half a story.

It is the whole story. What the hon. member is saying now, merely bears out the attitude of the Agricultural Union, namely that the Minister should bow to their decision; even if the boundary is across the summit of the highest mountains, even if it includes people’s farms which are burnt out annually, even if the boundary is wholly unrealistic and uncontrollable, the Government must accept their proposal! Because of the schism between the Agricultural Union and its members, I was asked to try to bring about agreement. I hope the hon. member understands that now.

There is one section of the community which must rely on a reliable labour source in order to maintain a decent standard of living. That is, of course, the dairy farmer. Over the last few years the dairy farmer has been plagued by unrealistic prices laid down by the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. He is now going to be plagued by the new action to be taken by this Minister under the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill which is going to interfere with his labour. When we discussed the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill in this House the hon. the Deputy Minister did not give us a satisfactory reply on questions in relation to labour, particularly the labour of the dairy farmer. He did not satisfy me or the country as a whole, I think, as to the availability of labour for agriculture in two respects. Firstly, from the angle of the farmer and secondly from the angle of the Bantu himself. He did not tell us where he was going to put the Bantu; he did not tell us how he was going to accommodate the Bantu and their cattle and families.

Let me deal with the problem of the dairy farmers. The unrealistic prices have made it very difficult for him to make ends meet. Many of them have gone insolvent and some have had to sell out in order to save themselves from going insolvent. Whole herds have been disposed of and they have taken up other types of farming. Those who have kept going are now faced with the difficulty of labour. The hon. the Deputy Minister tried to pooh-pooh the idea that they were experiencing any labour difficulties. I pointed out to him that in some parts of the country they were already having labour problems and I pointed out that that was proved by the fact that this Government had erected farm prisons so that farm prison labour could be available to farmers. I think we are the only country in the world in which prisoners are used as farm labourers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. I want him to reply to it and not the Deputy Minister. My question is this: Will the hon. the Minister tell us that he will see to it that the farmers of this country, particularly the dairy farmers, have a regular supply of good labour, that that supply will be constant without any interference by his Department? In a statement by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development we were told that the Department was going to do away with all tenant labourers within seven years and that in future all labour would have to be recruited through the labour bureaux. I pointed out that the farmer wanted to recruit his own labour. He does not want to take any labour offered to him, labour that may be unsuitable. The dairy farmer is a specialist; he must have regular labour, labour that likes that type of work and labour that is prepared to work in all weathers and be available always. He must have labour every day for milking purposes and for the delivery of his dairy products. Unlike many people in this country who seem to think so, including the hon. the Deputy Minister, it is not every Native who can handle dairy stock. Thousands of Natives have not the first idea of how to handle a dairy cow. It is essential for dairy farmers not only to have a constant supply of labour, but specialized labour, labour that will remain in his employ for a long period. On top of that it is essential that his labour is so organized that he produces the bulk of his own food to-day. At the prices he is allowed for his products it is quite impossible for the dairy farmer to feed his stock on purchased food. He has to produce the bulk of his food, if not all of it. If he has to try to produce that food with poor labour handed out to him by these labour bureaux, he will find that he will be forced out of business quicker than ever. What affects the dairy farmer affects the whole country. We know what has happened in the past. We have had to import butter and cheese and what does that cost the consumer? As from to-day the price of cheese and butter is going up in this country considerably because the products now being supplied have been imported from hard currency countries.

In that debate the hon. the Deputy Minister did not reply to the question where he was going to accommodate all these Natives who were to-day on the farms with their families and their stock. I want to ask the hon. the Minister where he is going to put these Natives and their families and stock? Will they be forced to get rid of their stock? We hear to-day that farm labour does not receive very high cash wages but their stock is at least running on good land. The Natives cultivate sufficient crops to feed their families well over the year. They cannot take their cattle to the reserves as the reserves are already overstocked. I doubt whether they will be allowed to take any of their stock into the reserves. I would like the hon. the Minister to reply to this question: What are they going to do, also in regard to the families? What are they going to do about hospitalization for those families? To-day where they are on European farms and hospitalization is required, they are adjacent to European areas and adjacent to hospitalization, and the European farmer sees to it that the families and children get the necessary treatment. If they go further into these reserves who is going to look after them in these already overcrowded reserves, reserves which are already eroded through soil erosion? Practically every reserve I know of is overcrowded, and, as I said, the over-stocking is something that leads to a lot of trouble. And if they have to reduce stock, there is immediately an upheaval among the Bantu. I would like the hon. the Minister to give us a full reply on these questions, particularly in regard to those two main questions of fundamental principle, firstly where is he going to accommodate these Natives? He says he cannot even get rid of small Black spots to-day because he has not got more land to accommodate them. How is he going to accommodate these tens of thousands of Natives with their families and their stock? Secondly, how is the farmer going to be able to teach and train his labour properly, especially the dairy farmers who are already getting uneconomic prices, and who in many instances are facing ruin? If there is going to be further interference with these people by them having to accept any labour that is meted out to them by a Department that does not understand their labour problems at all, many will have to throw in the towel. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) uses the labour problem as a pretext for retaining squatters on the farms. The whole tenor of his speech was that he desires that there should be as many squatters and labour tenants as possible, which incidentally is the most expensive kind of labour and frequently is the most inefficient labour. He is keen to retain them on the farms. But now he does not tell this committee that that is what he desires. No, he uses the pretext of the labour problem; he hides behind the labour problem in order to keep the squatters and the labour tenants there. I wish to tell the hon. member if he will only read the report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Depopulation of the Rural Areas, he will see that the great problem is not rural depopulation but rural blackening (becoming Black) and this Government, and this Minister is now implementing the new labour policy and the new labour pattern to put a stop to that. Hon. members cannot have both things simultaneously. Hon. members rise here and accuse the Minister and the Government and allege that the Bantu are not being removed from the White areas fast enough. They point out that the numbers continue to increase. And then the next speaker rises, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) did, and says: “No, they must stay, because this is the labour we wish to keep there.” One cannot have both things simultaneously. You must decide what stand you are going to take. Mr. Chairman, I doubt whether we should be so concerned about the labour problem. I should like to mention an example: The wool-growers of South Africa have for years been struggling with the problem of shearing. They could not secure the right type of labour to do the shearing, and the only solution found was to establish a proper system of organized shearing teams, which do this work in the form of migrant labour. So the sugar farmers may do the same thing in the sugar-cutting season, and they are doing so already. The farmers who have to harvest cotton, and who surely also have a season, could manage to do the same thing. Very few of these kinds of jobs cannot be done in the same way. Even in connection with dairy farming you can get migrant labourers who will be prepared to leave their land for six months and sometimes longer, especially the young Bantu, to go and work for a proper wage. I think it is necessary for us to tell the farmers of South Africa that the best and most efficient labour is not the labour tenant, not the squatter, but a man who knows that he will receive his wage for every day’s work, because then he completes a day’s work and he sees to it that he works full-time. I do not think we should become too obsessed with that problem.

I really rose to discuss another matter here. The United Party is always worried that race relations will be disturbed. What is the greatest wrong in South Africa which gives rise to the breakdown and disturbance of race relations? It is when a political football is made of the Bantu problem. I should now like to charge the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) with having made himself guilty of that again to-day. He went along and interfered in the political quarrel between Poto and Matanzima. For instance, he tried to drag in the election manifesto of Matanzima. This habit of continually making a political football of the Bantu, a bone of contention, so that he does not know whether the White man wishes to take him in South Africa, is the greatest cause of doubt and chaos and has given rise to the position in which the White man in the whole of Africa has landed himself, because the Black man has never known where he is being led. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) comes along and tries to drag across the floor of this House the recent election, an election of the Transkei, with two political parties, in order to make a political football of it. Do hon. members opposite not think they should put their hands in their own bosoms and tell the English language Press to keep out of the political quarrels of the Transkei, and that they should not prepare speeches for Poto and incite him to fight with his own people there rather than subject himself to the constitution of that territory? I should like to put it clearly: These hon. members of the United Party again want to make the borders of the area of the Transkei a political ball. The hon. member for East London comes along with a corridor story, and another hon. member says that the Bantu do not know where to turn. They should go and look at the Transkei Act, then they will see that the boundaries are properly defined there. But when we refer to these boundaries, whose sins are they? Is it not perhaps one of the greatest sins perpetrated in 1936 to some extent, that some areas were released without proper planning? I should like to give an example. In my own constituency there are Daggakraal, Vlakpoort and Driefontein, and then the released area between Piet Retief and Pongola. When I look at Daggakraal and Vlakpoort, they are areas which were specifically released in 1936; they were the property of the Schlesinger company, and the land there was sold throughout the years on a hire-purchase system. When the people were unable to make the final payments, the holdings were repossessed and then resold to another purchaser on the hire-purchase system. In this way they began to settle numerous squatters on the smallholdings sold there. But worse still, one is there faced with the difficult position that in Daggakraal and Vlakpoort, the two which are contiguous, there are three different ethnic groups. There is a South Sotho group in that area, as well as a Swazi group and a Zulu group. That was the unplanned and ill-considered manner in which things were dealt with in the past, and that is one of the problems we have inherited. We are still bound by the 1936 Act which provides that before you can put these places right, you have to acquire compensatory land. Now I cannot expect the Ermelo constituency or the Standerton constituency to give me compensatory land because my area has to be rendered White. I am mentioning this problem so that the committee may realize the magnitude of the problem, and that one cannot just move farms around in the way in which one can move cattle about. Here you are dealing with people with ideals, and if for instance you wish to take away the people of Daggakraal or Vlakpoort, you have to have regard to the fact that you will have to take the Basutos presently living there to a Basuto area, where they can once again join their ethnic group. But this still means that in the Transvaal you are making an area White, and you have to go and look for compensatory land in the Free State. These are all the thorns of this prickly pear you are dealing with here. So let me say this, that hon. members such as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) who ought to be aware of all the problems, merely come along and raise the dust here in putting the matter in such a way that they may make some political capital out of it. The hon. members ask what assistance we are giving for the development of the Bantu areas. That is what they are saying here in the cities. But in the rural areas the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) go along and say: “See, the Government have now become negrophiles (kafferboeties), they want to do too much for the Bantu.”

Is that not the truth?

Only two speakers before him said we were doing too little for the Bantu. [Time limit.]

I am sorry to tell the hon. member for Wakkerstroom that I find myself obliged to do, what he calls “stof opskop” in connection with a matter that I had hoped the hon. member would raise, and that is the position of certain Bantu in certain areas of the Northern Transvaal. About a month ago there were reports circulating in the Press, more specifically in what the hon. member referred to as the “Engelstalige pers” about the conditions of hunger and privation which were worse than they have been for 25 years in that area of the Northern Transvaal and the statement by certain authorities in Pretoria that large parts of the district were permanently depressed and large-scale action was needed to rehabilitate them, and that the temporary measures instituted up to now were inadequate, that the problem should be tackled at the root, and that the drought was the worst in five years of successive droughts. According to this quotation “‘starvation in some parts is the fearful possibility which has to be faced especially amongst those African families where no wages are coming in”, and that furthermore the need for hunger relief measures would be greater than ever this year, because up to 90 per cent of the African crop in some of these areas in the Northern Transvaal had been destroyed as a result of the drought. And this was confirmed by a discussion of the Transvaal Agricultural Union Congress in Pretoria, about 10 April of this year. This being a rather serious matter, about which we have heard before, and about which I satisfied myself as recently as 16 months ago, I asked the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development a question on 24 April drawing his attention to this particular report in the Rand Daily Mail, asking whether he had received reports, etc. He said: Yes, he had received reports about the existing drought conditions in certain areas. He said he was in the Northern Transvaal the week before, that is the week before 24 April and that he had discussed the matter with chiefs of the Venda national unit and that he had seen officials of his Department, and then he went on to say “a Press statement will be issued shortly”. That was on 24 April and to my surprise, having received that reply in Parliament on Friday morning at about 10.30, when the newspapers the following morning Saturday 25 April came out, they carried a statement by the hon. the Minister, a statement which he should and could have given this House at that time. Surely Parliament had the right to this information, and even if the hon. the Minister did not want to give it to me for political reasons, he owed this Parliament the same statement that he made on the same day to the Press for general publication. However, this is a lengthy statement which consists, in my view, of a mass of generalizations about the aged, the sick and the disabled who are getting help, and informing us that certain peoples and instances in South Africa had exploited the situation and had blackened South Africa’s good name, and that the system of assistance of his Department had been so effective that there was little hardship and that the old cause of illness, namely dietary habits had claimed its victims, and so on. Having received this kind of public reply from the hon. the Minister, I put another question on the Order Paper on Tuesday 5 May because it stood over from the previous Friday, and I asked for details about how many adults were being helped, how many children, and so on, how many schools were being supplied with food, how many pupils were being fed. I got a very lengthy answer and it was again a mass of generalizations: There were no statistics kept about the people who were getting assistance under the system of assistance of his Department. But when you talk of a system of assistance, you assume that system includes such a thing as a cost structure, how many people have to be provided with food, how much money is available for the purpose? Depending upon the circumstances in each case, assistance was being rendered—a two-page answer, but no reply to my question: What are the names of the people and instances in South Africa referred to in the Press statement of the Minister who were exploiting the situation? You know what the hon. Minister said to me? He said “the hon. member is referred to Press reports in certain newspapers in South Africa and overseas”. I would draw the attention of this very amiable hon. Minister to the fact that in the five-year period during which drought has been maulding those areas of the Northern Transvaal, overseas and in South Africa, having regard to the daily issue of one newspaper, by a particular company that owns a newspaper, there were probably 2,000,000 newspapers issued in that period. Does he seriously suggest that it is my function, when he makes allegations of exploitation as an evasion to the question I put to him, that I must now go and procure 2,000,000 newspapers from all over the world, including South Africa, and read them all carefully in order to find out where it was said that somebody was exploiting the situation? Would it not have been more accurate for the hon. the Minister to say to me and the House: The exploitation has taken place under these circumstances and these are the people who are guilty of it? If he knows that the position has been exploited, I say again, without any reference to the personality of the hon. Minister, that his two answers as well as his Press statement constituted no more than an evasion of his responsibility to state the facts clearly to this House, if not to me.

I want to give an example of what the hon. Minister calls exploitation. There are many, many bodies who are assisting the people in the Northern Transvaal because of the drought conditions. The hon. the Minister knows who they are. The y are church bodies, welfare bodies, public organizations, among them Kupagani. Now if that is a body which is exploiting the situation let the hon. Minister say so. But then at least we can measure that against the facts, as it is commonly known that Kupagani is a non-profit organization whose function it is to provide food free of charge by procuring it at the lowest possible rates from the producers, including such foodstuffs as oranges, in regard to which they made a deal recently under their scheme, and then making sure that at least a minimum of food is supplied. Does the hon. Minister suggest that these people are exploiting the position, because if he does then I would like him to explain this to me—if he says Kupagani is exploiting the position, and the church bodies are exploiting the position—what about the Native Recruiting Corporation. This is not a political body. It is the recruiting organization of the Chambers of Mines. How is it then that they recognized the seriousness of the conditions in the Northern Transvaal among the Bantu and that the week before I put my question to the Minister, the N.R.C., which is not a political organization or a philanthropic body but a labour recruiting body, made available a gift of R100,000 to Kupagani? You know what the hon. Minister has on his Estimates under the heading “Relief of Distress”, and this is the only related item of expenditure that I can find in this Budget “Relief of Distress”, on page 126, R10,000! And the hon. Minister talks about exploitation, so much so that one is appalled to learn that on 15 May according to Press reports, the Rand Daily Mail was advised that permission had been refused by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development to send a reporter to the African areas in the Northern Transvaal to study the Government’s and other relief measures. Now the obvious question is: “What is there to hide in the Northern Transvaal, that a newspaper may not be allowed to send anybody in?” Will the hon. Minister when he replies to that question deal with this question and tell this House why certain conditions are known, and since we assume that both the Government and the Opposition and all well-meaning people and bodies are anxious to avoid hardship being suffered by people because of drought in the Northern Transvaal, will he explain why a particular newspaper, or all newspapers, cannot obtain permission to send representatives in to do a survey there? If this is the position, then I must say that once again it is the Government, and in this case the hon. the Minister and his Department, who create this unfortunate and unfavourable image that we “enjoy” in the outside world. Because I want to tell the hon. Minister something: Whether it is a question of the depressed areas in Britain, or whether it is a question of the deep South, which is in terms of the American economy, a depressed area, there has never been a case where a Government Department has refused newspapermen and others to go into those areas. In fact they have co-operated and encouraged them to go there so that the public can be informed about the seriousness of the problem and so that the public can assist, and so that all sectors of the public can understand and assist in this problem. But here we have a situation that the hon. the Minister does not want to discuss it in the House, and when he gives an answer he sidesteps it twice, and then he makes a Press statement which gives exactly no factual information about (a) the extent of the problem and (b) the extent of the support and the help the Government is giving, and where finally, because a report appeared in a particular newspaper, that paper is debarred from sending anybody to the area to study conditions there. [Time limit.]

I want to revert to what was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher). He said that this border problem could yet cause the biggest explosion in South Africa, but he never said why. He did not mention a single reason to support his statement. I want to tell the hon. member that that is typical of United Party propaganda. It is just a bogy. Thereafter every speaker wanted to know where the borders of the homelands were and why they were not being announced. Surely hon. members opposite know that this Government has announced, not only through the hon. the Minister but also through the hon. the Prime Minister, that this side of the House stands by the 1936 legislation. Another 1,000,000 morgen has still to be bought for Bantu homelands. Surely it is obvious that no homeland border can be determined before all that land has been bought. This is a promise which that side of the House made in 1936, but they do not abide by it. They have broken their word, and their party has already split as the result of that promise. We are going to implement it. But surely the borders can only be ascertained after this land has been bought. Hon. members opposite are omitting one thing. If they are in such a hurry in regard to the determination of the borders, why has not a single one of them ever attacked the Government for being too slow in buying that land? That would be the right thing for the Opposition to do if it were worth its salt as an Opposition, rather than tilting at windmills for propaganda purposes.

The hon. member referred here to the agitation which some members of Parliament set afoot in the Western Cape in regard to the removal of the Bantu here. Now I do not know where the hon. member got his information from in regard to an agitation. We on this side of the House are not agitators who set agitations afoot. The fact is that we had a case which we stated and the Prime Minister accepted it as party policy. But it has always been party policy to clean up the White areas. It has always been the policy of the National Party.

But not separate states.

The hon. member is still wearing short pants. It has been National Party policy since 1948 to clean up these areas. Only one thing was decided, and that was also confirmed by the Cape Congress of the party, namely that the Western Cape would be the first area to be cleaned up. Now the hon. member speaks about sharp division in the Western Cape. That statement is devoid of all truth. I can give him the assurance that there is no division in regard to this matter in the Western Cape. I will meet him in regard to this matter at any place in my constituency. The fact is that there is the greater measure of unanimity in regard to the matter. The steps that have already been taken evidence it. Certain steps have been taken, and the hon. member knows about them. I hope he has taken note of the Central Committee which was appointed, and of the people who were prepared to serve on that committee. Commerce and industry and organized agriculture are represented on that committee. Those people accepted the invitation to serve on that committee because they were prepared to implement that policy. The hon. member knows what important people serve on that committee. He says that uncertainty prevails. I want to tell him that there is no uncertainty at all in regard to this matter in this area. Every man in this area, whether he is a farmer or an industrialist or is engaged in commerce, knows that this Government is not one which breaks things down, and the National Party is not a party which does that. For the past 50 years since it was established, the National Party has just been constructive. This Government will not break down what it has built up. Therefore the assurance was given from all sides that very cautious action would be taken in regard to this matter. That is the policy and it will be implemented because it must be implemented, but it will be done in such a way that nobody will suffer harm. The fact is that in this area there is superfluous Coloured labour, but another fact is that as the result of circumstances and the course of history, and also as the result of the ineptitude of the United Party during the years it was in power, this labour is not suitable; it is not skilled. In the first place, it must be made suitable. And now there are two matters which should receive attention, and those are the matters which the main committee and also the local committees will have to investigate, and which the Government will have to consider. The Government is serious in regard to this matter and therefore not only a Central Committee has been appointed, but also a Cabinet Committee which has to devote attention to this matter.

There are two steps which should first enjoy attention, and the one is the training of this Coloured labour which is available but not suitable, and it is receiving attention. Land has been bought by the Departments of Community Development and Coloured Affairs to establish training centres in order to train the superfluous Coloured labour in the Western Cape. The second step—and this has often been said already—is that one cannot simply put these Bantu on trains and dump them somewhere else. That would not be humane, and it is not the way in which this Government is tackling the matter. A livelihood must first be provided in those areas to which they have to return. Therefore these two matters are receiving attention simultaneously, the training of the Coloureds and the provision of a means of livelihood for the Bantu who are to be removed, and it is also receiving attention in the form of border industries. The hon. member referred to the Orange River Scheme. Some of the people who are fit for that sort of labour and who are to be removed here will certainly be utilized to assist in that great project. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to say anything in connection with the rural Natives; I wish to devote my attention to the urban Natives. I want to talk about the advisability of making the Reef one area for purposes of influx control. I have spoken on this subject before, and on the effect of the present policy on industry on the Reef. I pointed out that a certain cement factory at Roodepoort wanted to expand but was prevented from doing so because its labour force was limited to Roodepoort and they could not engage labour from elsewhere on the Reef. As the result they opened another factory at Rosslyn. Of course Roodepoort in this case suffers particularly because the Consolidated Main Reef Mine, its last remaining mine, is closing down, and industries are required to take its place. Had the factory been allowed to employ labour residing elsewhere on the Reef, there would have been no need to go to Rosslyn, so Roodepoort is the loser. The hon. the Deputy Minister is of course the member for Roodepoort and no doubt he will assure his constituents that they have come to no harm. Of course too, at present, with the colossal Government Defence expenditure, there is little unemployment in that area, but times will change and Roodepoort will then realize what was done to it.

I want to show how another industrialist, this time in Boksburg, has fared, and I want to quote from the Manufacturer of April 1964—

Now I know personally that the Benoni officials are the most humane men that can be found anywhere, but their hands are tied by the law. They have to administer the law as they find it. In plain language, they must do what the Minister tells them, so these African men must move or lose their jobs. The fact that their families might be broken up is, of course, of no consequence as far as the Minister is concerned, and we know that if they lose their jobs their future and that of their families is indeed murky. Where they will finish up, nobody can say. Where does this policy bring us from the practical angle. Industry as a whole wants to build up as stable a labour force as possible. What earthly reason is there for stopping a man living in Benoni from working in Boksburg or Springs or Brakpan? He is unlikely to seek work further away unless forced to because of the cost and the time taken in travelling. The Chambers of Industries and the Chambers of Commerce all agree that the Reef should be one influx control area. The Minister may say in a horrified voice that they are thinking only of themselves and of money, but this is not so. They are thinking of their businesses on which the livelihoods of their employees, White and Black, depend. If you cut their labour forces or restrict them in this peculiar way, you affect detrimentally all persons, White and Black, who work and live in that area and who should have more freedom of movement between home and employment, particularly as the gold mines are closing down. It is very difficult to understand what is behind this policy. Influx control is of course to a certain degree necessary, but surely it must be relaxed on the Reef with all the difficulties we are having at the moment, and I hope the Minister will tell us why, in an area where the municipal boundaries practically adjoin each other, such areas should be dealt with as if each municipality is a separate economic unit. It just does not make sense to me.

Now I want to turn to another matter. Late on a Friday afternoon in 1963 I received an urgent wire from the secretary of the non-European Golf Union saying he was awaiting the permission of the Minister to hold the non-European Golf Championship on a course on the East Rand. Application had been made weeks before. It was late on Friday, and I was unable to make contact with anybody in the Department until Saturday morning. The championship was due to start on the Monday. The course committee had approved the event, and the Benoni City Council had approved, but not the Minister. Fortunately I came across someone, a humane official in the Department on Saturday morning, who took it upon himself to give the necessary permission. I wired the authority and the event duly took place. I think you will agree, Sir, that that is shocking treatment, but wait for the next one.

Late on 4 March this year, a Wednesday, I received the following wire—

This wire was sent by the Secretary of the Transvaal non-European Golf Union, Daveyton. The following day I interviewed the Minister for Community Development in the lobby, and he kindly handed me over to his Private Secretary, who later in the day gave me the following note—

This was on a Thursday, and the event was due to start on the Monday. I accordingly wired on the Thursday, and in reply to a subsequent question to the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the permit was issued on 6 March two days before the competition was due to start. It is quite obvious that if I had not been in possession of the information and had not acted, the unfortunate non-Whites would not have received their permission until much later, if at all. It is quite obvious to me, too, from these two successive occurrences, that this mode of action was deliberate and from the way in which the Deputy Minister handles non-White affairs I can assume that this is his forte and his pleasure, but to me it is inhuman conduct. We all know that the Government regards these people as ciphers with no human feelings or rights, but I want to ask the Deputy Minister to clear the air in regard to these matters and tell us, firstly, whether he is against such events being held in White areas, and whether he is against non-Whites taking part in organized golf; secondly, whether he considers it fair, right and just that non-Whites should be deliberately kept waiting until the last minute before they know whether or not they can hold their contest; and, thirdly, whether this is his method of showing who is the boss in these matters. In conclusion, I must say that I consider the handling of matters in this manner as most un-Christian. I think it is too terrible for words, and I hope that in the future the Prime Minister will arrange for matters like this to be handled by somebody with a just regard for human rights and human dignity.

The only thing on which I can congratulate the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) is that he has now got a second theme on which to talk, because the other theme which he touched on to-day has already been discussed by him six times in this House, and each time worse than before. That is the cement factory at Roodepoort. Sir, what does one call that mental condition? Please help me to find another word, otherwise I must just say he is stupid. But I want to reply to the hon. member, and I shall start with the last point he raised.

The hon. member said that the reply to the application to hold a golf tournament was “deliberately kept back”. [Interjection.] Now he says “obviously”. Does the hon. member wish to intimate that I held it back?

Who else kept it back?

Now the hon. member says by implication it is I, but I want to tell him this. The day I answered the question in the House I invited him to raise the matter here, and therefore I am glad that he has done so. I wonder whether the hon. member has the integrity to accept my word when I tell him that when I received his telegram I had received no notification of it either from the Golf Union, or from the Town Council or from the Department. I knew absolutely nothing about that tournament.

Here I have a note from the secretary, which shows that he applied.

I ask whether the hon. member has enough integrity to accept my word? I say I knew nothing at all about that tournament until I received his telegram, and I immediately made inquiries about it telephonically, and that is why I gave approval for it here in Cape Town, and the Department issued a permit. [Interjection.] The hon. member says it was sent to our Department on the 24th, but the Department has various offices. There is an office at Benoni and one in Pretoria and during the Session there is also one in Cape Town. I do not know where that application was lodged. The person who had to decide on it was the Minister, or I on behalf of the Minister, and I could not decide before I knew about it. I do not know where that application was addressed to. The hon. member accused me of having kept it back deliberately, but I did not delay the matter for even half a day. But the hon. member does not have the integrity to accept my word when he makes such false accusations. That does not surprise me because we know the hon. member.

The hon. member put a general question to me in regard to the golf tournament. He ought to know that our policy is that the Bantu and other non-Whites should play golf on links established for them as groups. For as long as there are no links for them to play on in their own areas, the two Departments concerned in the matter, our Department and Community Development, are prepared to treat every case on its merits when they apply to play on the golf courses of the Whites, and permission is granted subject to certain conditions. As soon as separate courses are available to them, such applications will no longer be granted. I hope the hon. member understands it now. Next time we will hear all about it again, just as in the case of the cement factory. I am sick and tired of discussing that matter, because it cannot penetrate the hon. member’s mind. I should like to have his attention just once more, and he should really not make a fool of himself by continuing to talk on that subject. Even the people of that cement factory know what nonsense the hon. member talks about it. He reproaches me every time and says the factory is in my constituency, although I have repeatedly stated that it is not in my constituency.

The position is that that cement factory wanted to expand and they want to enjoy the benefits of a border industrial area, and they opened in Rosslyn, and the day the factory was opened…[Interjections.] Will the hon. member now please keep his mouth closed and open his ears? When that industrial area was opened at Rosslyn the people of that factory were also there together with me, and they themselves boasted of the fact that they could be pioneers in the Rosslyn area. They were not forced to go there. They went there for obvious reasons, but the hon. member for Benoni continually tells this old story. It reminds me so much of Leipoldt’s little song—

The hon. member asked why the Witwatersrand could not be made into one big influx control area, but at the same time he let the cat out of the bag and said that influx control to the Rand area should be relaxed so that more Bantu workers could enter. We are opposed to the whole of the Rand, with its various municipalities, being made one controlled area. They want to make it one area for obvious reasons, but for precisely the same reasons we do not want to. The hon. members want to make it one large area, with the deliberate object that the benefits conferred by Section 10 (1) (a) and (b) of the Group Areas Act will then be doubly applicable, because that Act provides that a Bantu can live in a place where he was born, and there is another provision which says he can stay there if he has worked for one employer continuously for ten years or has lived there for 15 years. The hon. members opposite want to have the position where a Bantu can have his birth qualification in one area and his long residence qualification in another area, because then he qualifies for the whole large metropolitan area. We do not want that. Apart from certain problems which we may perhaps still be able to solve by means of legislation, there are still the problems of housing and transport and like matters. Does the hon. member want one municipality to provide housing on a large scale, with the people going to and fro to work in other areas; they live in one place and work in another, and the place where they live is really a “dormitory town”? We have problems in regard to transport. Railway lines have been built to serve the resettlement areas and bus subsidies are paid. Are we now to disturb all those arrangements in order that these Bantu may move about freely all over the Witwatersrand? The hon. member may accept it as a fact that administrative arrangements are made for an employer who bona fide goes from one area to another. If an industrialist goes from Germiston to Benoni or Springs, the necessary arrangements are made for his Bantu workers to go with him, and if necessary, for them to travel up and down temporarily. Consideration is also given to mobile industries, such as the building industry, which is not place-bound. The building contractor builds houses in the area of a certain municipality to-day, and in six months’ time he goes to another area, and in that case we make arrangements. During recent months I still made specific arrangements to assist such people in regard to the transfer of their Bantu workers. [Time limit.]

I think one of the most urgent problems facing our country to-day is the question of race relations in the urban areas. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) also raised this matter in regard to the welfare of the Bantu in those urban areas. I believe that this particular problem is one which the Government should tackle on a more realistic basis so as to bring about an improvement in the living conditions of the urban Bantu. I think it is a pity that in this House, in discussing these matters, the loss of having elected persons as Native representatives to speak about a number of the everyday problems of these Bantu, is not appreciated. However, the position of the urban Bantu, particularly in relation to the increased cost of living, is a matter which requires the urgent attention of the Government. We know that with the present economic conditions in South Africa the lower income groups are the ones which are most detrimentally affected when it comes to any increase in the cost of living, as it means a further lowering of their standard of living. As far as the Bantu people are concerned, it is an acknowledged fact that the vast majority of Bantu fall in the strata of the lowest income groups. Therefore there are certain vital problems affecting these people which I believe should be relieved by the Minister. We know what a fertile breeding-ground for dissatisfaction and Communism unsatisfactory living conditions can be. That is why it is imperative that attention be given to some of these every-day matters affecting the Bantu. I realize that in our country the Bantu is provided with housing to a great extent, but there are many other factors involved concerning the economic position of the Bantu worker. The present policy of the Government whereby many of the Bantu are now housed some distance from their place of employment brings about a worsening of their economic position. With the improved housing, we find that rents have increased and the costs of transport have increased, and with these increases, in addition to the increases that occur from time to time in the cost of food, it is found that many of the Bantu people have to economize on food because that is the only thing left to them to economize on. Economizing on food brings about a more severe social problem, that of malnutrition. Although the Government, after considerable persuasion by this side of the House, introduced a feeding scheme to combat malnutrition and kwashiorkor among these people, we find that in spite of the improved housing there is still a considerable incidence of kwashiorkor in some of these housing schemes. A survey undertaken by the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Natal showed that in Kwa Mashu 25 per cent of the children attending the clinics are malnourished. We know that surveys have been carried out also by the Faculty of Medicine in Natal, which gave some alarming figures in regard to the incidence of malnutrition. This memorandum stated that totally inadequate wages, ignorance and, above all, the concomitant problems of the migratory labour system all contribute to the prevalence of malnutrition in the difficult and complex sociological structure of this country. I think that is a Clear indication of the serious problem facing us in regard to the health of the Bantu.

Following on the question of malnutrition, there is the other aspect of caring for those Bantu who are aged or disabled and unable to fend for themselves. If we look at the Estimates before us, there is actually a decrease of R600,000 under sub-head “H”, which provides for pensions and other financial assistance such as pauper relief, etc.

But surely you know that the Transkei Government is looking after its own people now.

Yes, I am only saying that the figure shows a decrease, and I will deal with it further, because the question of increasing the allowances made to the Bantu is the next point I wish to discuss. If you look at the figures provided, in regard to social pensioners, we see that there was an increase last year of R5.10 which was a special allowance paid to Bantu social pensioners. In assessing this increased amount of R5.10, which I might add was long overdue because the previous increase they had had was in April 1962, and then it was only R1.80 per annum, or 15c a month, it was therefore very welcome to see that there was an increase of R5.10, part of which came about last year. Now the point is that with this special allowance in regard to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, those Departments handling the payment of these amounts surveyed the position and paid the persons who were entitled to it in terms of the legislation passed last year, but my efforts to try and assess the figure of the payment of this allowance to the Bantu social pensioners have been unsuccessful. I was told that they did not have a record of those figures. So from the figures supplied in the Budget debate it appeared that approximately 50 per cent of the Bantu pensioners receive that special allowance, and they total 317,314, and by deduction it appeared that some 160,000 received the extra allowance of R5.10 per annum and 156,000 did not receive that increase. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether it was brought to the notice of these Bantu pensioners that they could qualify for this extra R5.10 per annum, because that is a considerable amount of money to them. It would appear that these pensioners have now lost the R5.10 because they did not receive the special allowance last year. So it would appear that those who are to receive it this year will have lost exactly one year’s allowance, R5.10, which they might have qualified for during the course of last year. That amount has now been lost to them. The amounts that are being paid to them, even in spite of the increase, are still negligible. Divided into the three sections, the city Bantu will receive R3.52½, the town Bantu will receive R3.2½ and the rural Bantu R2.52½ per month. These three amounts is another matter which I believe should be considered by the Minister. In regard to the social pensions of the other racial groups, that has now been consolidated into one amount. But as far as the Bantu are concerned there is still this wide discrepancy in payments. Sir, I intended to deal fully with the question of the care of the disabled Bantu. That is another aspect which I believe should receive the Government’s attention. While I am dealing with the question of the payment of these special allowances to all social pensioners, I think the question of making these payments on a bi-monthly basis should also receive the attention of the hon. the Minister. Two months is a long time for these Bantu people to have to go without any means of support. There are certain aged and disabled Bantu who are cared for by the relatives, according to Bantu tradition, but there are others who are not cared for and who have to depend upon the State and the Government for their existence. Incidentally, in reply to a question which was put to him on the 8th of this month, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development stated that the question of establishing settlements for the care of aged Bantu was receiving attention; that the question of establishing such settlements in the ethnic homelands was under consideration. I do hope that it is not going to be the policy to establish these homes only in the ethnic homelands, because there are many Bantu who have settled permanently in the urban areas and who can no longer fend for themselves. If those Bantu were sent to the ethnic homelands in terms of Government policy they would find that they are complete strangers there, completely unfamiliar with the way of life in those ethnic homelands. I trust therefore that the Minister’s reply does not mean that no State-aided homes for the care of the aged or disabled Bantu will be established in the urban areas. Sir, it is no easy matter for the relatives of these people in the urban areas to care for them. I have reports here from Bantu social workers in this regard, but I do not wish to quote them at this stage because I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that the relatives who care for the aged and disabled Bantu are often placed in a very difficult financial position because they cannot afford to assist these pople. [Time limit.]

I propose in the course of my speech to refer to certain observations made here by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). I am thankful for the fact that the hon. member did not follow the pattern which this debate followed in general, and in the circumstances I am not going to reply to him immediately. I think the pattern of this debate was laid down by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) who obviously set out to ridicule the Government’s policy in connection with the urbanization of the Bantu in his homelands. In my mind’s eye I can still see the well-cared-for hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) rocking with laughter at every feeble little joke of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. After him speaker after speaker on the Opposition benches stood up and tried to ridicule this policy. I am sorry that hon. members on the other side did not set out to state their policy against ours and to criticize our policy in comparison with theirs. But, Sir, this is not the first time that tactics of that kind have been used in a debate in this House nor do I think it is the first time such tactics have failed in this House. I still recall how the United Party in the ’fifties ridiculed many aspects of Government policy. I want to mention a few of them. I refer in the first place to the so-called site and service scheme. I recall very vividly how Opposition members at that time tried both in this House and outside of the House to ridicule this policy and to create the impression that this was something ridiculous which was being embarked upon by an impractical Government. I also recall very vividly how they fought against the Native services levy, which was designed to make provision also for transport services—the matter to which the hon. member for Umbilo referred here to-day. I wonder what the hon. member had in mind when he raised this matter here; I wonder whether he would be prepared to propose that the levy be increased so as to make it possible for the Bantu living outside of the cities to be transported more cheaply to their places of employment. I should like to hear whether he would be prepared to suggest that the levy be increased with a view to making transport facilities more readily available to those Bantu. But I also recall how the Opposition launched an attack upon the Natives Resettlement Act. Sir, I want to say to hon. members on the other side that if they are really concerned about harmonious relations between White and non-White they should try to turn over a new leaf; they should try to be positive in their approach to this important issue; they should not adopt a negative attitude, as they have done in this debate. I wonder whether hon. members on the other side do not feel ashamed when they look at the results of these measures to which I have referred here in passing, results which are discernible throughout the whole of South Africa. I wonder whether they do not have a guilty conscience when they adorn themselves with borrowed plumes and proudly show overseas visitors all these miracles which have been achieved thanks to the National Party. I agree that what has taken place is indeed a miracle, and perhaps we should not begrudge hon. members of the Opposition the privilege, as fellow-citizens of this country, of revelling in what this Government has achieved through its practical and efficient measures. I think instead of ridiculing what the Government has done members of the United Party ought to bow their heads in shame before the damning facts that I propose to mention here with reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo. The hon. member talked about the conditions under which the Bantu have to live in the cities. I want to ask him whether he has forgotten that under United Party rule the cost of constructing a four-room house of the standard type in 1948 was R800, whereas we have now succeeded, by means of standardization and labour-saving methods, in bringing down the cost of the same type of house to R420. If he has forgotten it, I want to remind him and his colleagues of it, and I want to ask them whether they do not agree that this Government has contributed towards the alleviation and improvement of the circumstances under which those people live in the cities. I also want to ask him whether they are not put to shame by the fact that this Government has succeeded in placing the financing of Bantu housing on an economic basis whereby the capital, together with the interest, is redeemed over a period of 30 years by the monthly payments of rental. Sir, I want to mention a few figures to you: In 1948 99 per cent of the moneys appropriated was for sub-economic housing, that is to say, only 1 per cent was for economic housing. In 1962 only 2 per cent of the moneys appropriated was for sub-economic housing and 98 per cent for economic housing. What right have the hon. member for Umbilo and his colleagues to say that if this Government is sincere it should try to alleviate the lot of the Bantu in our cities? Is the United Party not ashamed to adopt this attitude having regard to the fact that in Johannesburg alone this Government, without striking a blow, re-settled 90,984 Bantu and that to-day those people are all grateful residents of Bantu residential areas around Johannesburg?

In the White area.

I want to ask them whether they are not ashamed when they bear in mind the fact that the National Party Government has so effectively cleared up the slum areas around our cities that to-day the Republic of South Africa is acknowledged as a world leader in the sphere of low-cost housing? Sir, I say that when we bear these things in mind, as well as many other matters that I could mention, we must admit that a miracle has indeed been accomplished. I want to say to the Opposition that if they do not deliberately shut their eyes to what goes on around them they will agree that at this very moment another miracle is being achieved in the Bantu homelands. I foresee, without wishing to assume the role of prophet, that the day will come when they will have to admit, as they do in this case, that they were wrong and that the Government acted correctly and revealed more vision than they did. [Time limit.]

I should like to offer an explanation. I mentioned certain figures here on Friday in connection with the processing of fibres in the Transkei. I just want to correct the figures I gave. The sentence should have read as follows, “In the Transkei alone 3,226 Bantu labourers are employed on fibre processing”, and not 10,000 as mentioned by me, “and 788 in the higher posts”. In other words, more than 4,000 are employed in the fibre industry in the Transkei. Then in the second place I want to give this explanation: I referred here this afternoon to Selonstat. Selonstat was a scheduled area but it is no longer a scheduled area to-day. It is State-owned land to-day but there are still Bantu on it but those Bantu are to be removed.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) who says that the United Party ought to be “ashamed” about this and “ashamed” about that. I do not want to deal with the case which he made out here, but I should like to say this to him: I have seldom heard a member in this House boasting about the fruits of something in which he does not believe, namely economic integration. I have seldom had the privilege of hearing a person boast about the fruits of something in which he himself does not believe. Sir, as far as housing is concerned, everything that has been done for the Bantu in the so-called White area …

“So-called?”

Yes, so-called. Let me just correct the hon. the Deputy Minister. If he reads the report of the Tomlinson Commission he will find that that term is also accepted by the Commission, and I am quite prepared to bow to Professor Tomlinson, even if the hon. the Deputy Minister, to use his favourite word, thinks that I am stupid.

The hon. member for Westdene has explained here what has been done for the Bantu in the so-called White area, and I want to tell him that he is quite correct. These things have all been done in spite of this Government’s policy. In spite of the fact that this Government does not believe in economic integration, they boast in season and out of season about the fruits of economic integration. I will come back again to the hon. member for Westdene later on.

Sir, all the information which has been given so far in this debate by the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and most other members on that side must be viewed, in my opinion, against the background of the motive underlying the policy of separate states. What does the Government seek to accomplish with this policy?

To protect the White man.

What is the yardstick? There we have the answer from the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler).

And also the Black man.

The Government has laid down its own yardstick and that yardstick is this, “I am following the policy of separate freedoms, of separate states, in an attempt to protect the White man”. That is the one and only yardstick. Every step that this Government takes in the name of apartheid must he measured in terms of this one and only yardstick: Will it or will it not ensure the survival of the White man in South Africa? Sir, I want to make use this afternoon of the yardstick which they themselves have placed in my hands and examine to what extent their policy is succeeding.

It is not a difficult matter to apply this yardstick, for the simple reason that if you want to ensure the survival of the White man in South Africa by means of this policy, then you must comply with certain definite requirements. There are numerous requirements, but the first requirement is certainly this: If you want to turn apartheid into a policy which is to ensure the survival of the White man, then you must carry it through to total apartheid; there is no such thing as partial apartheid. The whole philosophy of separate states is inconsistent with the concept of partial apartheid. Sir, within the framework of this philosophy there is no alternative; it must either be total apartheid or else the whole philosophy simply breaks down in the present situation of multi-racialism.

Are you in favour of it?

Mr. Chairman, listen to that question!

Coming from a Whip it is a very simple question.

I ask myself to what extent the Government complies with this cardinal requirement; to what extent it seeks to achieve this goal of total apartheid. The reply to that question is this: The increase in the numbers of Bantu in the urban areas over the past ten years is in direct conflict with the basic philosophy of the Nationalist Party. The increase in the number of Bantu, even here in the Western Cape, about which hon. members on that side are so very perturbed, is in direct conflict with the philosophy of total apartheid. It will not avail the hon. the Deputy Minister to say, “Yes, I admit that the numbers of Bantu are increasing but they are increasing in terms of the policy of the Nationalist Party”. That does not help him. As long as the Bantu are here, whether permanently or temporarily, as long as they are here on a basis of inter-dependence between the Bantu and the Whites, as long as the Bantu are in the majority here—as a matter of fact even if in time to come they are in the minority—the Government is keeping a process going which is in direct conflict with the principle of total apartheid. When one looks at the deeds of this Government over the past ten years and when one applies their own yardstick, that is to say, the survival of the White man, one finds that they are failing year after year; that they are throwing overboard and ignoring their own philosophy.

Mr. Chairman, there is a second requirement which the policy has to comply with, and that requirement is the time factor. No person who reads the report of the Tomlinson Commission can but be impressed by the urgency of this matter. It cannot but be urgent. Every single day that the Brown man, the Black man and the White man participate together in building up the structure of South Africa, the Black man becomes more and more interwoven in that structure. And with every day that passes the unravelling process becomes more difficult. That is why the Tomlinson Commission says that this is a matter or urgency; that is why the Tomlinson Commission says, “This is an act of faith; it is a challenge; you will have to spend so many rand in so many years”. The Tomlinson Commission even goes so far as to compare the idea of apartheid with the reconstruction of Europe which took place in a very short period of time.

Is Tomlinson correct?

Mr. Chairman, all I am doing is to tell the hon. member what his policy ought to look like if it is to save the White man. Actually his policy is entirely different, but he thinks he is deceiving the public. Sir, I pose the question again: What has this Government done?

A great deal.

Is the Government aware of this time factor? We ask the hon. the Minister: “What have you done; how many cities have been established in the Bantu areas; how many factories have been established there?” The hon. member for Westdene says that we are ridiculing their policy. No, what we are doing is simply to apply this yardstick, and then the hon. the Minister comes along, as though he has a lifetime ahead of him, and tells us that Rome was not built in one day. Does the Government imagine that time is going to stand still for South Africa; that the inexorable march of history will halt and give the hon. the Minister time to carry out his policy at his own leisure? Sir, this is a serious matter, and as long as hon. members on the other side, including the Minister and the Deputy Minister, try to satisfy us with the type of answer that they have been giving us here, so long will they be deceiving the public. If there is one thing which the public of South Africa cannot afford—I can think of no greater danger—it is to believe that this Government’s policy will ensure the survival of the Whites when in actual fact it cannot do so because what the Government is doing is to ignore every single requirement of that policy. Mr. Chairman, no nation can do anything more dangerous than to be content with a policy such as the policy of apartheid, a policy which holds out no hope for its own future. It is a policy which is designed to ensure the survival of the Whites but which, as I see it, in spite of all the efforts of the Nationalist Party, still remains a policy on paper only, a policy in theory, a policy in the imagination of the Nationalist Party. The sands of time are running out for the White man and with every day that passes, we are further reducing the dwindling period which was left to us to ensure the salvation of the White man in South Africa.

The hon. member has again come here with the old cry that we always hear from the United Party, and that is that the policy of the National Party visualizes the application of total apartheid in South Africa. The National Party has never accepted that there will ever be total apartheid in South Africa.

May I put a question?

Let me first finish what I was saying. I have just started and the hon. member is already beginning to ask questions. The first person who rejected that proposition unequivocally in this House was Dr. Malan, and since then it has been rejected by every subsequent Prime Minister. The National Party said that total apartheid was an ideal which one could strive to achieve, but it went no further than that. Moreover, the present Prime Minister and I myself have always stated that for generations to come there will still be millions of Bantu in the White areas of South Africa.

Then you are accomplishing nothing.

Why come and make this sort of statement here?

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the Tomlinson Commission put forward two alternatives only—on the one hand total apartheid and on the other hand integration?

Sir, the hon. member has not taken the trouble to read the report of the Tomlinson Commission. The Tomlinson Commission stated that there were only two policies, which were diametrically opposed to each other; the one was eventual total apartheid, if it could be brought about, or apartheid, and the other was the policy of integration. There is no middle course. Is there anybody here who would suggest that there is a middle course? I want to make it perfectly clear again that the National Party visualizes that for generations to come, and far into the distant future, there will always be Bantu in the White areas. If it does prove possible at some future date to bring about total apartheid, then nobody would welcome it more than we would, but at the present moment it is altogether unpractical. Then I come to my second submission, which is clearly borne out by the report of the Tomlinson Commission, and that is that there is no middle course. Just as the policy of the Liberal Party and of the Progressive Party will eventually culminate in total integration between White and non-White, in all spheres, so the policy of the United Party will eventually culminate in full integration; it is merely a matter of time. Sir, two very important statements were made here this afternoon, and I am very pleased that they were made here. The first was made by the hon. member who has just spoken. He said that the present situation was one of multi-racialism. Sir, I reject that in principle. What does multiracialism mean?

More than one race.

I said here on Friday in the course of my speech that the Opposition accepted integration but that they were not prepared to accept the full implications of integration; if they now accept a policy of multi-racialism then I assume, of course, that they accept the full consequences of such a policy, and in that case I should like to know what the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) thinks about it. The policy in South Africa is not one of multi-racialism. It is true that we have economic integration, but that is not multi-racialsim. If our policy was one of multi-racialism then we would find in this country the sort of thing to which a Native has just objected in Lusaka in Northern Rhodesia. I refer to the objection which has just been raised by Solomon Kalula. I just want to remind the House what Kalula said; here we have further proof of the correctness of the policy of the National Party. Kalula said—

That is multi-racialism, Mr. Chairman! Here we have evidence which clearly shows that the Bantu in Northern Rhodesia object to this sort of thing. This only goes to show how far the United Party has already gone. The policy which they now admit they accept therefore is one of multi-racialism—and that includes all the implications of multi-racialism, of course. But there is a second important statement which was made here by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), who was supported by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). That statement was acclaimed by the Leader of the Opposition, and what it amounts to is that they now reject the principle of territorial separation. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West), to use his precise words, said: “As far as we are concerned boundaries are of secondary importance.” The hon. member for East London (City) wanted to enlarge upon that and he said: “As far as we are concerned boundaries do not count at all.” What is the implication of that?

We do not want to create states.

The implication of that is that the United Party is hoisting the white flag as far as territorial separation is concerned. What else could it mean? They say that as far as they are concerned the question of boundaries (“grense”) is a matter which is entirely of secondary importance. Mr. Chairman, I can only say that their policy is becoming “grensloos” (without limits). The implication of that statement, which was acclaimed by the Leader of the Opposition, is that under their policy the sky is the limit.

Where are your boundaries?

Then I should like to deal for a moment again with the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). I just want to say to him that in raising this matter here he rendered no service to the Agricultural Union. The hon. member tried to be clever here. He has the ugly habit of trying to make others out to be liars. That memorandum from which he quoted was submitted to the congress of the Transvaal Agricultural Union. They asked me to be present and I attended the conference. I replied to all those points at the congress.

Not the memorandum from which I quoted.

The matter was left at that, except for one small point, on which I gave them my reply.

The memorandum which they had there …

Listen to that, Mr. Chairman! What does one do with a man who is so ill-mannered? The hon. member is known as the most ill-mannered member in this House. There are certain elementary principles of decency which one at least observes, but the hon. member does not even do that.

I have already replied to the other matter which he raised in this connection. It is unnecessary therefore to deal with it further.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) expressed his concern over the “corridor”. Sir, I find that very strange, because a little while ago he said that boundaries did not count as far as they were concerned, and now suddenly he wants boundaries. How can one understand such a person? One moment he is a general of the Ossewabrandwag and the next moment he is a general of the Black Sash. I just want to tell the hon. member that according to our policy East London will never become an island in a Black sea. I give him that assurance. Once our policy has been implemented those Black spots around East London will have been removed. The East London area will be Whiter than it is to-day. In this connection we have the co-operation of the Bantu. They fully agree with that. Under his policy East London would not only become a Black island but it would become a Black area. There is not the slightest doubt about that. I can give him the assurance in writing that under our policy, East London will always be safe.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) expressed his misgivings in connection with labour for the dairy farmers. I want to make it clear to him that our policy is to give priority to labour for our farmers. In this connection I receive very fine co-operation from the agricultural unions. The agricultural Unions will be able to testify to the fact that we are doing everything in our power to give effect to that policy. But there are two types of labour in South Africa that we want to abolish as soon as possible, not only at the unanimous request of all the agricultural unions in the whole of South Africa but also at the request of the Agricultural Union of Natal. The first type is the squatter type of labour; the second is the labour tenant system. We are doing this not only at the request of the agricultural unions but at the request of the Bantu themselves because this is a type of labour which is scandalously exploited. I agree with the hon. member that the dairy farmer must have the right type of labour. I myself grew up on a farm where my father went in for cattle farming: I know how necessary it is to have good milkers. The hon. member may rest assured that we will do everything in our power to look after the dairy farmer. Wherever I can help, I shall do so. The hon. member need have no fears in that regard.

The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. du Plessis) has asked whether we cannot erect fencing around all the Bantu areas at the expense of the Department of Bantu Administration. That is an attractive idea but I do not think it is practical. The fact of the matter is that we do erect fencing as far as possible and we do so in terms of the Fencing Act. Where farmers approach us to erect fencing in terms of that Act, we assist them, of course, as far as possible.

Sir, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has suddenly emerged here as the stout champion of the people who are supposedly dying of hunger in the Northern Transvaal.

No.

Yes, that is the impression which the hon. member created here. The same sort of thing was done in this country a few years ago. At that time the newspapers were full of stories about people succumbing to hunger in the Northern Transvaal. Mr. Chairman, those stories were dragged before UNO to show how badly we were treating the Blacks in this country. But there was not a single word of truth in those stories. I went out of my way at the time to look into this matter; I took about 15 journalists along with me. I left it to them to decide where they wished to go. They accompanied me through the whole of the Northern Transvaal. Mr. Chairman, they were honest enough to testify to the fact that there was not a word of truth in the propaganda of the Rand Daily Mail and its kindred spirit.

I myself say that there is starvation.

The Rand Daily Mail now comes along with the same story and what the hon. member for Hospital does is to encourage it. When there is good work to be done one is surprised at the absence of people like the hon. member for Hospital, but when there is an opportunity to besmirch South Africa’s name then they are always in the vanguard. I just want to say that there is no single word of truth in it. I admit that the position is serious. We have been taking good care of those people in the past. We have taken such good care of them that I receive letters every day in which these people express their gratitude. We have looked after them so well that the Bishop of the Anglican Church—I do not think he will mind if I mention his name—has done me the honour of visiting my office personally to thank me personally for what I have done to assist these people. I have had expressions of gratitude not only from him but also from the Bantu. Why start besmirching this country again? The hon. member says that I should have issued a statement in this House. Surely that is nonsense. Surely the statement which appeared in the Press was just as good. The hon. member wants to know how many Bantu I fed and in which areas, etc. The fact that he put such a question to me shows how little he knows about conditions in the Northern Transvaal. It only goes to show his ignorance and the wilfulness which motivates that question. [Interjections.] I can only give him the assurance that we have the position well under control. We have seconded an official on a full-time basis to see that nobody suffers want.

Order! How can the hon. the Minister make his speech when the hon. member for East London (City) and the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) carry on a conversation across the floor of the House?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) is making the Minister’s speech for him.

Order! I heard the hon. member for Turffontein replying to the hon. member for Ventersdorp a moment ago. He is also guilty therefore.

The hon. member for Hospital wants to know why a certain journalist was not allowed to enter that area. There is one thing that I want to make perfectly clear here: I will never allow that type of blackguard (“smeerlap”) to enter the Bantu areas again. I do not know who he is, but I have instructed my officials not to allow these blackguards to enter the Bantu areas again because all they do is to send a lot of lies out into the world. When one asks them to go and point out these things to one, then they are unable to do so. There was the case where a certain doctor made allegations of this kind and he was repudiated by his fellow-doctors. We then took the matter further. One of the doctors took him along in his motor-car and asked him to go and point out the area in which these people were starving. Mr. Chairman, he is still searching! That is where the hon. member gets his information from. I honestly admit that the situation is serious, but I want to give the assurance to the House that we will see to it that those people do not starve.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) talked about the economic position of the Bantu in the cities. Sir, the economic position of the Bantu in the cities has never been as good as it is at the present time. In the days of the United Party Government the Bantu had to live in hovels. Their economic position has never been as good as it is to-day, but I am one of those people who have repeatedly appealed to the people who talk this way to pay their Bantu decent wages. I do so again to-day in all seriousness. There are some people who do not pay their Bantu workers decent wages, and I want to make an appeal to them once again to-day. It is strange, Mr. Chairman, that these are the people who are always the first to say that the Government should increase the wages of the Bantu. Our policy is to ensure as far as possible that the rental which the Bantu has to pay does not exceed 20 per cent of his income; that is the basis which is accepted throughout the world, and we try as far as possible to work on that basis. The hon. member also points out that the amount provided for pensions has been reduced. That has already been replied to by one of my hon. friends on this side. I might just point out that the sum which is being granted to the Transkei amounts to, I think, R1,400,000. If everything is added the amount will be higher, of course; I believe it would be at least an additional R1,000,000. That figure therefore does not reflect the true position. In this connection too I want to make an appeal to people to look after their former Bantu servants who have become too old to continue to work. I simply cannot bring myself to cast aside a Bantu servant when he becomes too old to continue to work. What I am accustomed to is that these old Bantu are cared for just as well in their old-age, if not better, than they were cared for in their younger days. Sir, here I want to mention the fine example of the late Oom Jakob Wilkens. When his Bantu workers reached the retiring age they returned, as usual, to their Bantu area, but Oom Jakob saw to it every year that they received a pension and he also provided them with food. I can personally testify to the fact that at his own expense he used to send two to three ox-wagons loaded with bags of maize to the Bantu areas to deliver food to them. Do any of these people who criticize our policy do so much for their Bantu? Very few, Mr. Chairman. There is another thing that we might bear in mind; it is the one thing which I have always warned against. The Bantu have a very fine custom of taking care of their aged and disabled people, and anybody who does anything to destroy that fine system will be rendering a disservice to the Bantu. It is our duty to see that they do not suffer.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have dealt with more or less all the main points which have been raised here.

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Revenue Votes Nos. 31 to 33 (Commerce and Industries and Mines).

On Vote No. 31.—“Commerce and Industries”, R13,931,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half an hour please? The prime mover of the increased rate of economic development that we have witnessed in recent years has clearly been the manufacturing industry. There is little doubt that in future South Africa will have to look more and more to the manufacturing industry for rapid economic growth. What is more important it will also be the manufacturing industry to which the country will have to look to provide employment for its rapidly increasing population. For the manufacturing industry to grow rapidly it is necessary to increase export earnings from industrial products otherwise the country will require a considerable inflow of foreign capital. The ideal position would, of course be, if we could get both a rapid increase in the export of industrial products and an inflow of foreign capital. This is so, Sir, because all economic studies have shown that as a manufacturing industry develops rapidly so does the demand for imported goods, particularly capital goods, semi-manufactured goods and raw material for the manufacturing industry itself. In an article in the South African Journal of Economics of 1962, on page 301, it is shown that the import requirements of the manufacturing industry were far greater than its export earnings because the imports for the manufacturing industry were far greater than the exports of that industry itself. The rapid growth in our manufacturing industry was made possible by the rapidly increased export earnings of the gold-mining industry and agricultural exports and also, of course, because of the rapid inflow of capital until about five years ago. It is quite clear that the foreign exchange earnings of the goldmining industry have reached their peak. I think everybody is agreed on that, in the absence, of course, of a considerable increase in the price of gold. But I do not think that is something on which one should gamble today. There is also a limited rate at which agricultural exports can be increased. I think the Minister will agree that if we are to continue our rate of development the export of industrial products will also have to increase rapidly. Unfortunately the record of industrial exports has not been very good over recent years. This has been due mainly to the falling off in exports to the African markets which are, of course, the natural markets for our industrial products. The official figures show for instance that exports to African markets have declined from R155,600,000 in 1957 to R12,000,000 in 1962. The monthly figures for 1963 seem to indicate that this declining trend is going on.

If for reasons beyond the control of the Government we cannot increase our industrial exports to Africa we shall have to make it up in our exports to other countries. In the first place, this can only be done by means of the active promotion of exports and, secondly, of course, by keeping the cost structure of our industries as low as possible. The duty to increase exports naturally rests on the industrialists themselves but they can only operate in a complex created by the Government. They are therefore entitled to as much assistance as possible from Government side. Other speakers on this side will show how our exports have already suffered in the past as a result of Government inefficiency, non-co-operation, and, of course, because of some of the policies they have followed and on which I shall touch in a moment. Another important factor that will influence our industrial exports in future will be the tariff structure of world trade. The hon. the Minister has recently been to Geneva and I understand he is on the point of departing again to Geneva to attend the conference of GATT and also the United Nation’s conference on trade development. I trust he will tell us what the Government’s approach will be at these talks. I understand it was decided recently to recognize the special position of countries like South Africa, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. If possible I should like the Minister to inform us what is meant by this special position; what special advantages or disadvantages will flow from it. I do not wish to say much more on that subject. I am sure the hon. the Minister will tell us what is happening in that regard.

Of course, overhanging the whole question of exports from South Africa, is the threat of economic embargoes. We know already to what extent it has developed in certain African countries and in certain Asian countries. Although the affects have been minimal they have certainly hit certain industries hard. More alarming is the news which appeared in the newspapers this morning in regard to what the Ambassador of the United States Government at the United Nations said in Sweden. He is reported to have said—

They go on to quote him—

We on this side of the House would like to tell our Western friends that if they are interested in retaining democracy in this part of Africa the most certain way of destroying it would be to apply sanctions to South Africa. To anybody who has any knowledge of the situation in South Africa it must be clear that in a multi-racial country like this the misery and poverty and the bitterness that will follow as a result of sactions applied to South Africa will not strengthen democracy but will more likely destroy it. Instead of improving race relations, which is apparently the object of the people who make these threats of economic sanction, they will embitter race relations for generations in this country. If the aim of those people who threaten economic sanctions to South Africa is to remove apartheid the obvious way of doing that is to encourage rapid economic development in this country. If they had any knowledge of what had happened in South Africa over the last 10 or 15 years they would realize that the more rapidly the country developed economically the more of a myth the policy of racial separation had become in South Africa and the policy of apartheid. They should realize that every new factory makes apartheid and Government policy that more unreal. It is only a question of time, and a very short time, when the electorate of this country will suddenly realize how completely impractical the road is on which this Government is trying to take the country. I know they always refer to the erosion of the civil liberties and the political rights of the non-Whites over the past 15 years. But what they overlook is that over this same period the economic and social position of those non-Whites has increased tremendously. In the long run that is surely the only way in which you can develop people politically and civilly. That is exactly what is happening in South Africa. If we had a spell of rapid economic development in this country of the same order we have had over the past few years, it is inevitable that civil and political rights will have to be extended to the non-Whites, no matter what Government is in power.

It is not only the tariff structure that exists in the world, and the artificial barriers, like boycotts which our exports will have to overcome. The volume of our exports in future will basically and certainly in the long run depend very largely on South Africa keeping the cost structure of its industry as low as possible. For that to happen one must obviously follow certain policies. We on this side feel that unfortunately some of the Government’s policies militate against that. Take one example; take the Government border area development policy. We are told that the Government’s policy of border area development is justified on both economic and political grounds. We are told that our industries have already become too concentrated and that decentralization will be economic. We are told that political border development is necessary to separate the races and to keep the Republic White. We realize, of course, that social and political reasons must frequently override economic considerations. Let us therefore consider to what extent border area development will separate the races and keep South Africa White. In the first place if border area development is to have any dramatic effect on the South African scene it will have to be massive. The great bulk of future industrial development will have to take place in the border areas. There will not only have to be the small marginal development we have at present. This must of necessity mean that the existing industrial complexes will have to develop far more slowly. I know the argument is frequently advanced by hon. members opposite that border area development will somehow or other stimulate the development in existing centres as well. Of course, Sir, this is a most dishonest attitude to adopt. It is wrong to say that because you develop areas like Hammarsdale and Rosslyn and the other border areas very rapidly you will also get more rapid development in the Southern Transvaal, Durban and the West Cape. That is simply not so. Everybody should realize that the country only has a limited amount of capital and a limited amount of technological manpower. If you employ these in new growth points the other industrial areas must of necessity suffer.

The question therefore arises whether such massive border area development will separate the races and keep the Republic White? What will massive border development in fact mean? It will mean that the bulk of the industrial development must in future take place in areas like Hammarsdale, Rosslyn and East London for example at the cost of the slower development of Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth for instance. But what will happen at these new places? White capital, White skill and Black labour will make manufactures for all the people of South Africa as is happening to-day in the case of the existing industrial centres. It will just mean a shift of economic integration from an area like Johannesburg, for instance, with Blacks predominating in numbers, to areas like Hammarsdale, East London, Pretoria (North) where the Blacks are even more predominating. That will be the only end-result. It will simply mean shifting South African industries to areas that are even blacker than the existing industrial areas. However, by some strange political alchemy we are told that this will keep the Republic White. I have never been able to understand how that can be brought about. May be the Minister can elaborate further on this.

This side of the House are therefore convinced that there are no over-riding political or social reasons for border development. It will not stop South Africa from being a multiracial society in which White capital and skill and Black labour make for rapid economic development to the benefit of all races. Let us see if there are any economic advantages. Let me clearly say that we are not against decentralization for economic reasons. A limited number of industries lend themselves to economic decentralization of which the most obvious example is the textile industry but there is no reason why they should only go to the border areas. There are many suitable areas which hon. members on the other side like to call the White heartlands, i.e. the smaller villages in the area which they consider will remain the White Republic, areas which we know are at the present moment becoming depopulated very rapidly. Surely those areas should also receive encouragement under the policy of decentralization. But large-scale decentralization is certainly not justifiable on economic grounds. None of our big industrial complexes has reached the size of those of the leading industrial countries of the world, even those of Canada and Australia. Our biggest industrial complex is not nearly as big as some of the industrial complexes in Canada and Australia for instance. Big industrial complexes lead to economies of specialization. This explains the fact of course that some of the cheapest industrial products in the world are produced in the greatest industrial complexes in Japan, Germany, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, to give just a few examples, and not in small decentralized industries. The stage in which the industrial complex becomes so big that social and indirect economic disadvantages clearly outweigh direct economic advantages to the investor has not been reached in our existing industrial centres. There seems to be little doubt that if they grow even bigger, they will become more economic and more efficient because of the bigger-scale operations that become possible, greater specialization; and of course the external economy becomes of greater and greater importance the greater your industrial complex becomes. Any large-scale diversion of industrial growth from our existing industrial centres to the new border areas can therefore only increase our cost structure and militate against the export of industrial products in future. The very fact that the hon. the Minister has to offer such substantial inducements to intending border industrialists, shows that this is not an economic development. As long as the development takes place on a small scale and as long of course as what is happening in the three places that I have mentioned, Hammarsdale, Rosslin and East London, where you decentralize not too near the borders where you have your greatest concentration of Native population, but where you decentralize to existing industrial cities in the so-called White areas in South Africa, not much harm is probably done, because they are still so close to the existing industrial complexes, that they still have the advantages of the services and the other benefits that are derived from the nearness to industrial complexes. But if the development is to take place on a scale that makes political sense in nationalist terms, there is not the slightest doubt that our whole cost structure will be pushed up, and who will have to foot the bill if you really get a massive development in the border areas and the Government has to pay out millions and millions of rands for these inducements that are being offered? Who will have to pay those taxes? The existing industries in the existing industrial centres, and not only the industries, but also the farming community and the mining community, thereby pushing up your whole cost structure of your economy. Because if over-centralization is a danger, and we hear such a lot about that, there is also a danger in over-decentralization.

It is of course not only the border development policy of the Government that tends to push up industrial costs. There are also other aspects of the Government’s racial policies that push those costs up. If you look at our past development, the expansion of the agricultural and mining industries, (our great export industries up to the present) could take place largely on the basis of unskilled Native labour. But rapid industrial development requires a far higher percentage of skilled and semi-skilled labour. And whilst this requirement grows that, we will have to provide from our existing population, (far greater numbers of skilled workers and semi-skilled workers), we have a policy of separate development which makes this very difficult. How is one to build up a stable labour force with a policy that regards the great bulk of industrial labour, Bantu labour, as merely temporary sojourners in the White man’s cities? Migrants that can be shuttled back and forth at bureaucratic whim! If what the country requires is far more skilled labour than what the White section, even with immigration, can provide, what sense does job reservation make? What justification is there for instance for job reservation as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned, population groups which are now regarded as permanent and not merely temporary sojourners in the White man’s cities? Those groups have reached a stage of educational development that they can form a vast potential for the extra number of skilled and semi-skilled workers which our future rapid industrial development will require. Now of course, Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the fact that the effect that job reservation has up to the present had on our economy is probably exaggerated, because the Minister of Labour frequently defends his policy of job reservation on the basis that it affects so few workers and that it has not really affected adversely any racial group. If that is so, why continue with such a futile policy. Because despite the fact that probably it has not had any great adverse effect on any population group, which shows that it is not necessary, in any event, it has a tremendous effect on our so-called international image. It is the one thing that is awfully hard to defend if you are overseas why you should have job reservation. You can explain to Westeners why one must discriminate politically between the different racial groups, but if they ask you why you have to discriminate as far as the acquirement of skill is concerned, between the different racial groups, I want to tell the hon. Minister that it is one of the hardest things to try and defend South Africa on that basis. So here we have a futile bit of ideological policy which is being made more and more futile by our rapid economic growth and yet the Government persists with it. I wish the Minister would use his influence with his colleagues to get job reservation recalled. It would be one of the steps that would greatly assist to restore the confidence of the overseas investors and industrialists in South Africa. Rapid industrial and economic development, Mr. Chairman, after all does not only mean capital development and the development of the country’s natural resources—it also means the rapid development of the skills of people, and the freedom of workers to develop their potential abilities to the full. This is hardly possible if the country treats the great bulk of its labourers as foreigners. Rapid industrial development becomes even less likely if the location of industries is based not on economic factors but ideological considerations which in the end solve nothing. That is the whole tragedy of the policies we are pursuing in this country at the moment. They solve nothing basically in the long run. All they do is to destroy South Africa’s good name and destroy the confidence of our overseas friends in South Africa and destroy the confidence of investors and industrialists in South Africa. As long as the Government carries on with the myth of apartheid and does not enforce it too severely we will continue to develop as in the past, if not as fast as our potential justifies, but the moment you start to apply the policy more vigorously, the slower will the rate of growth of South Africa be.

The hon. member concluded his speech with the old tale of woe that the more apartheid we have—if I may put it this way—the slower will be our economic growth. We have been hearing that same refrain now for the past 16 years. One would have thought that by this time the United Party would admit that that story is entirely without substance. Our economic growth in South Africa is more rapid than that of any other country in the world, whatever the United Party may say.

I want to discuss one of the statements made here by the hon. member. The hon. member says that we are now moving economic integration from the urban areas to the border areas. I simply cannot understand how anyone can make a statement of that kind. The hon. member ought to know that the Bantu live in their own reserves in the border areas; they leave those areas for the day to go and do their work and they sleep in their own areas at night. They do not have as far to go as a Spaniard, for example, who has to cross the border to work in France, or an Italian to work in France or in Switzerland. That statement by the hon. member is an irresponsible statement therefore. These people leave their own areas to go to work; in this regard they are vitually in the same position as the Bantu in the compounds on the mines. Those Bantu live in compounds at their place of employment; they never leave the surroundings of the compound.

I want to say a few words in regard to decentralization as such, in pursuance of what the hon. member said, and I want to tell the hon. member that he is completely wrong if he believes that only border industries are going to be developed and no industries in other parts of the country. There is no such thing. We want a balanced development of industries wherever they are needed in the country. We cannot allow industries to continue to grow in one spot or in a few spots to the exclusion to the rest of the country. That is why I want to discuss the question of industrial decentralization from a broader angle than from the angle of border industry areas. I shall say about border industries at a later stage if I get the opportunity to do so. At this stage I just want to mention that the position in South Africa is that our industries are concentrated chiefly in the Vaal triangle. Our water supplies there are diminishing. There is no room for unlimited expansion there; at some time or other we are going to run into trouble. We must have decentralization. But we must also have decentralization in the Rand area, in the Rand-Vereeniging-Pretoria area. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) continually makes the complaint in this House that not enough industries are being established in Springs. But the Government does not tell industrialists that they must establish their industries in Springs or Johannesburg or any other centre. If industrial land is available in a particular area, any person is at liberty to establish an industry in that area. But what is the position on the Rand? I have here the latest available figures—those for 1962. These figures refer to the industries which have been established there and which have to import raw materials. I do not have the figures in respect of other industries which have been established there; these figures only relate to industries which are permitted to import raw materials. They were all free to go to Springs if they wished to do so.

They were not at liberty to go there.

They were at liberty to go to Springs but 89 per cent of them were established in the central Rand area, in Johannesburg; only 8 per cent were established on the East Rand and 3 per cent were established on the West Rand. The point that I want to make is that we are faced here with the problem that even within that industrial complex people still want to establish industries in the most concentrated industrial areas. That is not a sound state of affairs. We must have decentralization both in that area and in other areas. The point I actually want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is that if a city wants additional industrial land to-day, or if a municipality wants land, it cannot purchase that land if the provincial administration does not approve. The matter is referred to the provincial administration. The city council usually says that that land is required with a view to future industrial development, even though it has no intention to use that land for a considerable time to come and may eventually use the land for housing purposes. This matter is referred to the provincial administration which in its turn first has to obtain the approval of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. That Department then says: “No, we do not want you to have more land for industrial development in the urban areas. We reject the application.” The provincial administration therefore turns down the application of the municipality concerned to purchase that land. As a result of this we find that a considerable amount of land which municipalities could obtain at a reasonable price is lost to them. They may need that land for a housing scheme at a later stage and then it is no longer available to them.

I want to ask this question: “What plan can we make in order to obtain that land?” Our difficulty is that if we say that a municipality can buy land freely and there is no other method of control over industries, this may lead to industrial development in that area contrary to our policy. That is why I want to say that our control to-day in respect of the siting of industries is not as effective as it might be. Once industrial land is available it is very difficult to say to an industrialist: “You cannot go to that area because you need too much Bantu labour”. That is extremely difficult. As I see it, the only thing to do is for the hon. the Minister to assist us to work in the direction of the licensing of industries. After all, that is the system that is followed in England. No industry can be established in England to-day unless a licence is produced to show that that industry may be established at a particular place. As I see it, this is the most effective way in which we in South Africa can exercise proper control over industrial decentralization. Let us abolish control over land which a municipality wants to purchase but let us then institute control by requiring every industry which is sought to be established to be licensed. Then the State can come along and say: “We will give you the licence on condition that your labour pattern complies with the conditions laid down in the licence”. It will then be the easiest thing in the world to provide for the establishment of capital-intensive industries in the urban areas and for the establishment of labour-intensive industries in the border areas. That is the whole position in a nutshell. I have omitted all the frills and all the arguments for and against this proposition; I have merely contented myself with a bare statement of the case. Perhaps I shall be able to give more details at a later stage. I want to come back to what the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) said. I agree that our exports of manufactured goods to the Africa States have decreased but in the nature of things our policy is such that those states do not see eye to eye with us. We cannot settle that dispute in any normal way. I think at this stage we should forget about that market to a certain extent. A climate may develop in the future in which we may be able to develop those markets once again. As far as the marketing of our products abroad is concerned, depending of course upon whether we can market our products at prices which are competitive with those on the world market, I see no difficulty. I want to tell the hon. member that the story in connection with embargoes and so forth which had its origin in America is not worth the paper on which it is written. My honest opinion is that America realizes as well as any other responsible country that she cannot afford to lose the South African market. England realizes this too. If they do lose this market and they are responsible for losing it, the people who will suffer most in the first instance will be the three British Protectorates which lie adjacent to and within our borders. [Time limit.]

I should like to ask the Minister whether he can tell us why he has not consulted with organized industry in regard to his coming meeting in Europe. Surely this should have been regarded as essential? I understand it has not been done. I think it would have been a great help to him. Mr. Chairman, we all remember the statement by the hon. Minister some time ago to the effect that if the future of a nation is at stake economic laws must be broken. At that time he was referring to this vexed question of industries on the borders of the reserves. We do not agree. We differ entirely in our views on this matter. I say that the chickens have not yet come home to roost, but they certainly will. As the hon. member for Jeppes has said, our export of manufactured goods has dropped and is still dropping. As he said, our natural markets in the North are boycotting us and I think it is fairly reasonable to say that if it were not for the colossal war expenditure of the Government many of our industries would be finding themselves in serious difficulty. If the hon. Minister does not agree with me, let me refer him to remarks made by Dr. Rabie, the Director of Export Promotion of the Department of Commerce and Industries as reported in the Star of 16 September 1963. In this he said that South Africa’s exports to Africa fell by R35,000,000 from 1957 to 1962 mostly, of course, occasioned by the 1960 Trade Agreement with Rhodesia. These figures were mentioned also, I think, by the hon. member for Jeppes. It must be obvious to anybody that this trend of a drop in manufactured exports, combined with an increase in the number of factories, must increase competition for the local market. I should like to tie up this particular breaking of economic laws with the encouragement of industries away from the great industrial area of the Rand, where mines are closing, to other areas near towns, in the name of the dispersal of industries to the borders of the reserves. We have told the hon. the Minister before that the cost per White employees in the new areas is twice as much as it is on the Reef, because of all the benefits which are already there. The Minister knows this, and he also knows that these diverted industries are being helped in many ways. He has just given us a White Paper and he has given us a statement on the benefits that they can give to them, and they are not bad. I have here the Benoni City Times of 15 May. Look at the headlines: “Harder fight foreseen in struggle to win industry. Government generosity body blow to Benoni.” This does not only apply to Benoni. It applies to Randfontein, Springs, Nigel and the lot. The effect of this general policy of the Government is particularly noticeable in the case of a cement factory in Roodepoort. I mentioned this to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. This factory was forced, through lack of Native labour, to open a branch at Rosslyn. It was not allowed to expand in Roodepoort just when a local gold mine, Consolidated Main Reef, was closing down. This factory was told there was no more Native labour available in Roodepoort, although there was plenty on the Reef. This hon. Minister and his Department have acquiesced in the action of his hon. colleague in refusing additional Native labour, and as I said the branch factory was forced away from Roodepoort to Pretoria just at the time when a local mine was closing. In addition at present a very great effort is being made to create the impression that there is a shortage of water on the Reef and that it cannot carry more industries. Their hearts are sore at the foolish things economically they are being forced to do by the Prime Minister, and this is the latest excuse. I am afraid they cannot get away with this one. I should like to quote from the report by the Natural Resources Development Council on the water supplies of the Vaal River in relation to its future development, which is dated February 1953. On page 4, it reads as follows—

On page 10 it reads as follows:

The sub-committee is of the opinion, however, that the creation of new industrial areas within the Vaal River Catchment Area should be discouraged, and that the creation of new industries should only be encouraged—(a) in those areas where existing labour forces are concentrated in the vicinity of short-life mines, so as to provide new avenues of employment to the labour forces which are at present dependent on employment provided by the mines and allied industries, and which may otherwise become a social problem; and (b) where the geographical location of raw materials necessitates the placing of an industry in a particular vicinity. The subcommittee feels that it would not be unwarranted to assume that the above can be attained without unduly restrictive control, and that planned development of industrial expansion in the whole area can be attained.

On page 12 it is stated:

On page 17 this report refers to an address on the re-use of water by Dr. G. J. Stander. Dr. Stander’s report is attached to this report. The final quotation I should like to make from this report is found on page. 6. It reads as follows:

Then, further in a paper delivered by Dr. H. H. McGregor to the Southern Transvaal Regional Development Association in May 1963 it was stated:

I am not going to read it all, but he goes on to say that it must be remembered that at present some 40,000,000 gallons of Rand Water Board water per day are used by the mining industry, and that this water will become available to the new industries which I hope will be established there in due course. Mr. Chairman, this question of there being a shortage of water on the Rand just will not wash. This technical report says that it is not correct. Mines are closing down. Mines use very large quantities of water which will become available for industry. I hope the hon. Minister will not try to hide behind a shortage of water on the Reef, because this shortage just does not exist. To try and solace his conscience in this way is futile. The Minister knows that economic laws are being broken. He knows that the Reef is being sacrificed. He knows that this industries on the borders of the reserves policy of the Prime Minister is doing absolutely nothing to keep the Africans away from White areas. I should like to ask him: “Why does he acquiesce in this nonsense?” We finally managed to get him to see the light in regard to assistance to low-grade mines in the area. Why does he not take the same common sense approach to industries in the Reef area? I do not know how he got that past the Cabinet, but he got it past anyway, so he must have something. I am talking about the gold-mine assistance. I hope he will do the same in regard to industries on the Reef because it is no use blinking this question. The Reef is being sacrificed for the benefit of this ideological nonsense of calling Pretoria a border area.

I do not want to say much about the economic progress on the Rand but it is far greater than it ever was. It is absolutely nonsensical of the hon. member to say that the economic progress on the Rand is being sacrificed because of the ideological policy of this Government. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) is in some difficulty. His difficulty is that a “boom” has caught him. An economic upsurge has caught him. He sits here in a dual capacity. I want to ask him whether he knows Dr. Frans Cronje, the Chairman of the Netherlands Bank, and what he thinks of him as an economist? I think a great deal of Dr. Cronje, the Chairman of the Netherlands Bank, as an economist. I think far more of him than I think of the economic knowledge of the hon. member for Jeppes. As I say, his difficulty is that that economic upsurge has caught him. When there was an economic slump, when there was a certain amount of unemployment, when we were struggling to get this economic development moving, the hon. member for Jeppes stood up in this House year after year and said: “You will never succeed in starting the ball rolling as long as the policy of apartheid is followed. As long as you have job reservation, as long as you continue with your ideological policy there will be no progress in South Africa in the economic sphere. It will remain in this state of depression. It will remain just as static as it is and until you obey the economic laws, the economic laws of supply and demand, the economic laws of the free flow of labour, White or Black labour, we will never experience an economic upsurge in South Africa.” We are experiencing an economic upsurge at present, an economic upsurge such as has been seldom experienced in this country, an upsurge greater than ever before, and what does the hon. member for Jeppes have to tell us now? He says that this economic upsurge could have been far greater if we had not followed a policy of separate development. The fact is that this economic upsurge has accompanied our policy of separate development; it has accompanied increasing separate development and it has accompanied the increasing application of the policy of the Government. I appreciate what the hon. member for Jeppes has said about the latest threat of Mr. Adlai Stevenson and I want to congratulate him on what he has said. The hon. member pointed out that if they apply economic sanctions, the first people to suffer under those sactions will be the Black people and that if those sactions are applied successfully, that state of affairs will greatly aggravate race relations in this country. I agree with that, but what did he say next? He said he wanted to tell Mr. Stevenson that the economic upsurge in South Africa would destroy separate development. I fully agree with him that this would be the case if we were to follow their policy. Not only would separate development be destroyed, if their policy was applied, their policy of laissez-faire, but the position of the White man in South Africa would also be destroyed. If they have their way and we experience the type of development which he has mentioned, they will have to concentrate all that development on the Rand, and no matter how much I want those areas to progress—and they will progress as swiftly as economic conditions permit them to progress—if we experience an economic upsurge on the basis on which they want it, I have no doubt that it will destroy not only the whole policy of separate development but the position of the White man as well. The Whites will simply drown in a Black sea and the right of survival of the White man will be destroyed.

The hon. member for Jeppes has also said that border industries will increase the cost structure. But last session the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) warned us that these border industries would compete too strongly with industries on the Rand; he said that they would compete on a far cheaper basis because they could produce far more cheaply. How can both these arguments be correct? The hon. member for Yeoville says that they will produce cheaply and the hon. member for Jeppes says that they will increase the cost structure!

The hon. member for Jeppes also told us that we must abolish job reservation. He said that there was a shortage of manpower. He asked why we could not make use of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu for semiskilled and skilled work. This is the easiest thing in the world to say during a period of prosperity but once we have trained a vast army of Bantu to do semi-skilled and skilled work and we experience a period of low conjuncture, which is unavoidable in the economy of any country, we will be handing over our White workers to a veritable army of semi-skilled and skilled Bantu workers. The White worker will be the first to suffer when there is the slightest recession. We can only train the Bantu as semi-skilled or skilled workers in their own areas and in the border industries. Industrialists would, of course, welcome the abolition of job reservation, just as the mine-owners would welcome it. It would result in an immediate decrease in production costs. But it would be holding a dagger at the heart of our White workers and this Government would certainly not consider it.

I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) in connection with exports to Africa States that we must at the moment simply forget about the Africa States that are boycotting us. It is not our fault that they are doing this. They are doing it deliberately and it is an economic fact which we simply have to accept until such time as the attitude there changes. Why has the hon. member for Jeppes made a point of saying that our exports to those countries have decreased? There is nothing that we can do in that regard. We export to those countries via other places but obviously our exports have been affected to those areas. We have to face the economic fact that at the moment and as far as we can see, for the next number of years, we will not be able to develop markets in Africa. We will simply have to find markets elsewhere. Nobody can accuse this Minister and the Government of not having done everything humanly possible to expand our markets abroad. He sent missions to America, to Europe and to the East, all of which were very successful. All those missions did very good work and succeeded in developing our markets in Europe and particularly in the East. What greater success can we have than that achieved particularly by the mission to the East? Our trade with the East is more than it ever was before. Not only is it more than it ever was before but it is still increasing by leaps and bounds. Thus, instead of bemoaning our fate and instead of wasting our energy and time trying to make a breakthrough into the markets in the African States, even though they do not want to trade with us, it appears to me that it will be far better for us to concentrate all that energy upon other parts of the world. I think that the hon. the Minister deserves the congratulations of the House for the successful way in which he has done just that.

I want to conclude by associating myself with the plea of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) in connection with the licensing of industries. Because we have a combination of municipalities on the one hand and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on the other hand, all of whom have a say in regard to the siting of industries, our present system is extremely unwieldy. I cannot see why a formula cannot be found in this regard. For example, we can say that if an industry employs a certain number of Whites as against a certain number of Bantu, then that industry must be established in or be moved to the border areas. We can say that if the ratio of labour to capital is a certain figure, then the industries involved can be established in the present urban industrial areas. [Time limit.]

I think the whole of our industrial development in this country is assuming a new pattern. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) says that in spite of the prophecies of doom of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) as to the economic future of this country, we are experiencing boom conditions in this country to-day. Sir, we have a boom here at the present moment but let us examine the position. Do not forget that at the moment we have currency restrictions and we are restricted in cerain other ways. In addition to that we are spending a lot of money on Defence. When the hon. member talks about boom conditions he must ask himself how long these boom conditions will last. Sir, no country can live as an industrial country unless it expands its export markets and its internal markets. It has been pointed out here to-day that our exports are actually falling.

Only in Africa, not in the world.

The hon. member for Vereeniging talked about our trade with the East. Sir, I would like to tell him that the tragedy of the situation is that enormous shipments of raw material are leaving this country every day. We are proud of the fact that we are exporting millions of tons of manganese ore and iron ore from our various ports to the Far East and other countries. Do hon. members opposite realize that this raw material is processed overseas? We buy some of it back in the shape of finished goods, but the rest goes on to the world market. The question has been raised as to why we ourselves do not process our own minerals. If other countries can find markets for the processed goods, why cannot we do so? Let me give hon. members one of the reasons. The hon. member was talking about job reservation. Does he realize that a lot of the raw material which leaves this country goes to a country where there is no job reservation, where the whole nation is able to play its part in the industrial expansion of that country, and does he realize that this country, Japan, has become one of the most prosperous countries in the world?

It is one of our best economic allies.

I would like to say to the hon. member for Vereeniging that he must remember that it is absolutely necessary for us to increase the exports of our secondary industry. We have heard a great deal about our dying mines. It will still take a long time before our mines die, but as a growing country we must make provision for secondary industry to take the place of our gold mines. We cannot live in our own fat; we must have new and fresh capital coming into this country. We must export; we must export or die; that is the position of this country. Sir, we have some very big factories here but when we compare their output with that of other factories overseas, it is just like a drop in the ocean. In the motor industry we are to-day manufacturing parts, and we will probably reach the stage where eventually we will be able to build cars in this country. The factories which we are erecting can produce very much more than they are producing at the moment, but the cost structure will increase if we cannot at least export some of the parts that we are manufacturing. The motor industry cannot absorb all the parts that we are manufacturing in this country.

How many parts are we importing?

I know that manufacturers to-day are desperately trying to increase the export market, but it is not easy. We must realize that in order to be able to manufacture economically, whether it be tractors or any other article, you have to produce on a large scale. At the moment we do not have the export markets and our own population is not big enough. When I talk about our population I refer to the White population because unfortunately our non-White population has not been allowed to develop to the extent where they can become customers of our manufactured goods. Our small White population cannot absorb the terrific volume that these factories will eventually produce. Sir, that is the only way in which we can hope to go ahead in this country.

Sir, I would like to say a few words about our fishing industry. This is one of our industries which has a terrific export market. We eat relatively little of the fish that we catch in this country. The bulk of it is exported. In order to develop this industry to the fullest extent we must naturally have the necessary harbour facilities. Apart from harbour facilities we must have cold storage facilities and we must have repair facilities. We are one of the largest exporters in the world of fish meal at the present moment, but except for Cape Town we have no cold storage facilities. I would like to tell the hon. member that at our small fishing harbours there are no cold storage facilities, apart from facilities which may be provided privately. I hope that the Government will do something in this connection. We have had statements in the Press and questions have been asked for years as to what is happening to the Cape Town fishing harbour. We have been told here that the Department of Commerce and Industry themselves are taking over the planning of this particular harbour, and they will eventually let us know what they propose to do. Sir, as you know it takes a long time to build a harbour; it takes a matter of years after the planning has been completed, and one is a little disappointed to see that the hon. the Minister has only made provision for R5,000 on his Revenue Vote for investigations of this harbour, but he has provided no capital funds even if he decides to build a harbour to-morrow. So it will be another year before we come back to this House in order to vote the money for this particular harbour. When it comes to the other important harbours along our coast we find that provision is made for something like R4,263,000 of which the hon. the Minister is only going to spend R734,000 this year. That is a drop in the ocean, of course, because harbours take time to build and are expensive. We find that the fishing industry itself has the greatest confidence in that industry. They are spending millions of rand on the erection of factories and processing plant but you find that the Government is lagging behind. I can only appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something about it. He has stated that he has a project in connection with these harbours and I wish to ask him whether he cannot, at this stage, table a White Paper so that we can know what he intends doing for this industry. [Time limit.]

From various reports I have seen it would appear that there are at least two manufacturing companies which would like to produce farm tractors in South Africa. As this is of vital importance not only to the farming community but to South Africa in general I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us whether there is any truth in this rumour and, if so, when it would be possible for this to be done. I should like to add that Pietermartizburg has every facility for factories and the Minister might bear this in mind as well.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) on his maiden speech. This is the first time since he has been in this House that he has made a speech instead of reading out something that was written for him …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that, Sir. I also notice that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) has made a contribution by asking about an industry and asking that it be placed at Pietermaritzburg. But I thought the hon. member was in favour of the policy of controlling Bantu labour which would lead to that labour being moved away from non-border areas such as Pietermaritzburg.

Is that not a border area?

I was getting to the subject which I wish to reach and I have arrived there with the aid of the impetuous member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). That hon. member has just said that Pietermaritzburg is a border area.

It is a border area because it has a Bantu area on its border.

Let us get this straight. It is either a border area or it is not. The hon. member asks whether that is not a border area? Now we were getting somewhere; it is a border area …

It is not a border industry area.

I see. It is a border area but not a border industry area. That is fine. We are getting this split personality again of the Bantu Administration Department and the Department of Economic Affairs. I want this point cleared up by referring to the Minister of Economic Affairs the situation as revealed by the hon. member of the Bantu Affairs Commission and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. We have had the claim from the hon. member for Heilbron that Pietermaritzburg is a border area. According to the hon. member for Economic Affairs it is not a border industry area.

It is not classified as such.

I see. I want to ask the hon. Minister for Economic Affairs whether he will now tell us the difference between a border area and a border industry area. I know all about the benefits attaching to a border industry area. But I want to know what is the difference between Pietermaritzburg which is a border area and Hammarsdale, for instance, which is a border industry area? Or what is the difference between Hammarsdale and East London and Pinetown for instance. They are all border areas. But what is the factor which differentiates between a border area and a border industrial area? We know the benefits of being a border industry area but we want to know why some places are classified as border industry areas and others only as border areas. If they are all border areas then they are serving the same purpose politically, in terms of the Bantustan philosophy, wherever they may be because they are providing employment to Bantu living in the Bantu areas. Therefore a border area, whether it is classified as a border industry area or not, is serving exactly the same purpose. Are we then to assume that the difference and the reason for not classifying Durban as a border industry area is purely one of arbitrary decision. What does an area have to do, what does it have to have to get the favour of being classified as a border industries area? What has East London got that Durban has not got? Durban has got a lot more industries. Why should she be penalized because she has got industries? We on this side of the House have always been absolutely clear in regard to this. We are in favour of the decentralization of industries and the growth of industry in any area and at any centre where it is justified, where it is economically justified, where it can survive as an economic entity. But we are opposed to the artificial use of the economy of South Africa in order to try to carry out a hare-brain political philosophy or ideology, and the more we go on with the debates in regard to this situation, the more utterly crazy and hare-brained the whole position appears to be. This position of borders that are not borders, industrial areas which are not industrial areas—the whole thing is becoming a mockery! And this hon. Minister is the Minister who is being made the tool of the policy of the Prime Minister and the ideology of the Prime Minister. He and the whole economy for which he is responsible is being used as a tool to make political capital in order to further a political philosophy. We believe that is not in the interests of South Africa, it is not in the interests of the economy of this country, and it is not in the interests of the future security of this country. That is why we on this side of the House plead with the hon. the Minister, as we have pleaded before “let us put first things first”. We want South Africa to go ahead, we want and we support the decentralization of industries.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.