I move—

In this Bill the House is being requested to approve the appropriation of an amount of R535 million for the administration of the country for a period from 1st April of this year until the Appropriation Act is promulgated, which is expected to happen early in July.

The Bill makes provision for R400 million on Revenue Services, R9 million for Bantu Education and R126 million on Loan Services. These amounts can only be utilized for those services for which funds have already been voted during the current financial year or for those services for which statutory authorization already exists. However, hon. members are requested not to try and calculate at this early stage what Government expenditure for the new financial year will be since Government expenditure does not follow any fixed pattern, and margin should be allowed for a possible delay in the publication of the Appropriation Act. In view of my Budget speech on 22nd March hon. members will not expect me to give a full summary of the economic conditions in the Republic at this juncture. There are. however, a few aspects of the economy to which I want to refer.

In his Budget speech last year my predecessor said that apart from the renewal of existing loans he expected to draw approximately R15 million by way of new overseas Government loans in the current financial year. Conditions in overseas markets during the past year, however, were exceptionally unfavourable, and credit—both short- and long-term— is both scarce and expensive. From the point of view of our own anti-inflationistic policy it is advisable under the present circumstances to finance our capital programme out of domestic loans—that is out of our own savings —rather than to do so by means of overseas credits, and we have succeeded in obtaining more than enough domestic loans for that purpose. Consequently we have decided to assimilate only a limited amount of foreign capital and to do so as far as possible in the form of stand-by credit on which we do not have to draw until we need it.

In terms of this policy two credits of approximately R7 million each from German and Italian banks have been paid back and have not been renewed. A credit of $10 million (approximately R7 million) from an American bank was paid back in July 1966 (on the due date) but was replaced in October by a new credit of a similar amount for a period of 11 months at a rate of interest of ½ per cent above the highest rate which the bank pays to foreign central banks for 90-day fixed deposits, with a minimum of 6½ per cent, and a commitment fee of ¼ per cent on undrawn amounts. We have not yet drawn on this credit. The recurrent credit of $40 million (approximately R28.6 million) which we have had for many years with a group of American banks was replaced last month by a new credit of the same amount for a period of slightly less than a year at a rate of interest of 6½ per cent per annum plus a commitment fee of ¼ per cent. Recently we have made relatively little use of this credit and at the moment there is nothing outstanding, in other words, we are merely paying the ¼ per cent to ensure that the money is available if we should need it.

In November 1965 a French bank made a loan of R50 million French francs (approximately R7.2 million) to the Reserve Bank and the Reserve Bank transferred this loan to the State; 20 million French francs was repayable in November 1966 and the remainder in November 1967. However, the French bank agreed to postpone the first instalment of R20 million French francs for a year, i.e. until November 1967, at a rate of interest of 7 per cent. The original rate of this credit was 6 per cent, which is an indication of how rates of interest overseas have increased during the past year.

In 1966, apart from Government credits, the Republic received large amounts of private capital from overseas. During the first three quarters the inflow was R119 million, of which R61 million was long-term and R58 million short-term. Figures for the fourth quarter are not yet available but according to provisional indications there was a further small inflow. It has been alleged in the House that our statistics in respect of the capital inflow were poor, but in reality there are probably few countries, comparable with the Republic, whose statistics in this respect are better than ours. Few countries, too, have these statistics available sooner than is the case in the Republic.

It also seems to me that there is quite a good deal of misunderstanding in regard to the nature of this capital inflow. It can assume many forms, some of which are never reported to the authorities and only show as a balancing item in the statistics. Suppose, for example, an overseas parent company were to send machinery or supplies to its subsidiary in South Africa, but subsequently informs it that it does not have to pay. An inflow of capital has taken place, but naturally such an influx does not necessarily come to the attention of the authorities. Ultimately the figures will indicate that the value of our imports has increased by RX, while our’ reserves have not decreased by that amount, and the RX is then indicated as a capital inflow in the statistics. Although the considerable capital inflow of the past year made our struggle against inflation more difficult, it was not so easy, therefore, to do anything about it. The situation is quite different from that in certain overseas countries such as West Germany and Switzerland, for example, where large amounts are deposited by foreigners in the West German or Swiss banks or other financial institutions—mainly for reasons of speculation, i.e. out of fear of the devaluation of their own money, or merely to take advantage of the higher rates of interest. The West German and Swiss authorities have, quite rightly, taken steps to discourage this kind of capital inflow. But in South Africa the capital inflow has not taken this form, or has done so only to a small degree, and the measures taken in West Germany and in Switzerland would be quite uncalled for here.

The classification into long- and short-term capital in our statistics is at times, for unavoidable reasons, somewhat misleading. All capital inflow not identifiable as fixed for more than a period of a year is classified as being short-term. We know from experience, however, that a great deal of unidentified capital, and even a great deal of the unidentified capital which in the first instance enters the country as short-term capital, really remains here for much longer than a year. An overseas company may perhaps lend money to its subsidiary in the Republic on demand, or for an unspecified time, and that capital can remain in the Republic for years, but according to international usage the capital inflow is regarded as being short-term.

The inflow of private capital has, as I have already said, aggravated our inflation problems, but for reasons which ought now to be clear I am reluctant to take direct steps to stem that flow. South Africa can still put that foreign capital to good use, and it would be inadvisable to discourage it. It would be quite a different matter if we were to receive large amounts of flight capital which were simply being deposited here without contributing anything to our development. This did happen in 1947, but I cannot recall the Opposition taking any effective steps at that time against this phenomenon.

The best way of countering the undesirable consequences of our capital inflow is the measures which my predecessor and I announced on 7th December, particularly the relaxation of import control and the measures to absorb excess liquidity. It is still too early to say to what extent these measures have succeeded —in fact, in no country in the world are statistics so quickly available that they can demonstrate the full effects of such measures only two months after those measures were taken. It is significant, however, that a complete change in the short-term money market recently took place. Until recently the money market institutions had a surfeit of money, but the position has changed entirely and they are now having to borrow considerable amounts from the Reserve Bank; in fact, the Government is having to assist them by investing surplus Treasury funds with the institutions in order to enable them to pay off their debt to the Reserve Bank in part. At the same time the tender rate for Treasury bills rose from 4.34 per cent on 2nd December, 1966, to 4.86 per cent last Friday, and this increase ought to be of assistance in counteracting the grey market. The narrowing of the money market is a good sign for our anti-inflationary policy. Apparently it is attributable in the first place to the higher level of our imports and consequent drop in our foreign reserves, and in the second to the policy of the Government in withdrawing and sterilizing the excess funds of the private sector. The latter policy is reflected in the large balances which the Government have built up with the Reserve Bank—R196 million on 31st January.

In respect of savings, too, the indications are favourable. The new savings obligations have been favourably received and an amount of almost R12 million has already been invested in them. The Post Office Savings Bank has also fared considerably better since the rate of interest on savings deposits and savings bank certificates was increased. In other countries the small saver invests considerably more in the State than in South Africa, and I think we should see to it that the State receives its fair share in this respect as well. I want to repeat, however, that it is still too early to be able to deduce to what extent our measures have succeeded, and definitely too soon to consider any relaxation. We are watching the position and if it is necessary the Government will not hesitate to take further steps. I move.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance has indicated that it is as yet early to judge the effect of the anti-inflationary measures which were introduced in December. I can appreciate that. What he has said will be carefully studied by those who devote themselves more particularly to finance on this side of the House. Of course, it is as yet early to give any opinion as to the wisdom or otherwise or the effectiveness of the steps which have been taken. On that account, I know the Minister will forgive me if I do not follow him immediately in a financial discussion. It is because it is my belief that it is not only the financial policies of this Government which have led to inflation, but also its obsession with ideologies often to the detriment of the economy that I propose moving an amendment to this Part Appropriation Bill. In doing so I want to indicate that it is probable that the Opposition will move a second amendment later in the debate to cover another subject which we are anxious to discuss. I wish to move the following amendment this afternoon:

1. (a) it will base a policy for the decentralization of industry on sound economic and strategic reasons and not only on ideological considerations that often fly in the face of the true economic and strategic interests of South Africa without even achieving the ends they are intended to serve; and
2. (b) it will not abuse influx control laws and regulations to exclude workseekers from employment opportunities in existing industrial and farming areas when they are not assured of work elsewhere and when their exclusion will retard the healthy and desirable development of those areas”.

I want to say that for years now the whole economic position has been influenced by the Government’s obsession with the idea that it could reverse the flow of Bantu labour into White areas and turn it back again into the Bantu areas. One of the ways in which it sought to do this was to establish industries in the so-called border areas regardless of whether this was the most economic form of development or whether it was in the interests of the national economy or not. When we face the Government with labour statistics and population statistics contradicting the suggestion that the flow of labour could be reversed, Government spokesmen have for years fallen back on the forecast that whatever was happening now, by the year 1978 the turning point would be reached. From that time on they would start reducing the number of Bantu employed in the White areas. Government spokesmen took this disturbing line. That was before the advent of the new Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. When he came on the scene with all the enthusiasm of a convert, he decided to go one better. In June last year he told a meeting in the Von Brandis constituency that he would stake his political reputation on the prophecy that there would be fewer Africans in the cities by 1978. That of course means that if the turning point does not arrive in 1978, it has to come very much earlier. What is much more serious is that the hon. the Minister started to act as though he really believed this was possible. After a few months experience, I am happy to say that he changed his tune quite a bit. In an interview with Die Burger he seems to accept the late Dr. Verwoerd’s prophecy that 1978 would see a turning point in the inflow of Bantu into the White areas. Sir, that is progress of course, but I am not sure if it is satisfactory progress. I am not sure that it is good enough because, despite repeated challenges to the late Prime Minister from this side of the House and despite repeated challenges to the former Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his then Deputy, the present Minister, there has never been one iota of proof put before this House that there is any scientific justification for the claim that 1978 could or would see a turning point—not one iota, Sir. In fact, all the evidence before us has been the other way.

You will recall, Sir, that when last we discussed this matter in this House, Die Burger, the Government-supporting newspaper in this city, had a report the following day that yesterday in the House an old friend was laid to rest—the year 1978. There have been continued attempts to revive that old friend. I make no excuse for reopening this matter, because while the Government continues to pursue this myth with customary obstinacy and ineptitude, so long is it bound to continue to force up costs artificially and to hamper the economic development of the country to the entire detriment of the whole population, in other words to do what the Minister of Finance warned he was prepared to do, namely to bend the economy for ideological reasons.

When you look at this Government’s scheme against the background of the economic development of South Africa and its history, it is an extremely ambitious scheme and it is an extremely dangerous promise to start making to the public of South Africa. If you look at our history over the past 50 or 60 years, our development has been very largely one of rapid economic and mining growth and consequently rapid urbanization throughout South Africa. Just look at the figures. In 1911 only 53 per cent of the Whites were in the urban areas. The figure at the last census was 82.6 per cent. Take the year 1911 again. Only 13 per cent of our Bantu were urbanized at that time. To-day 31.8 per cent are urbanized according to the census of 1960. That means that we have moved from a position where in 1911 there were 153,000 more Whites than non-Whites in our urban areas to a position where to-day there are 889,000 more non-Whites than Whites in our big urban areas.

Why not take the year 1800 as your example?

That was the figure in 1960. I quite understand that hon. gentleman getting so disturbed. He has been in this House for a long time and I know what his hopes were when he first started supporting this separate development policy. He really believed that there were going to be fewer Bantu in the White areas.

[Inaudible.]

He knew it was going to happen. He was so sure. He must be having a terrible time squaring it all with his conscience at the moment when he sees what has happened. The problem is that this process is continuing because under this Government’s policy there are going to be very few large urban areas developing in the reserves for a very long time to come. As a result our White cities are going to go on becoming blacker and blacker, possibly faster than ever. Nevertheless hon. gentlemen opposite still talk about the reversal of the flow by the year 1978.

Tell us what you promised at Britstown.

What I promised at Britstown was to keep a proper control and to keep the Bantu population in the White areas to a reasonable minimum. I did not promise that I would reduce them by 5 per cent a year as this hon. gentleman did. I did not promise to disrupt the economy of the Western Cape as this gentleman is setting out to do. But, Mr. Speaker, we will deal with this hon. gentleman when the time comes. Obviously if you cannot turn the flow back by 1978 then you cannot turn it back earlier. You realize, Sir, what it means to bring about a reversal of the flow of the Bantu from the reserves into the White areas. Do you realize what it is going to mean in respect of our labour force? The economic development programme expected that in the year 1964-’65 32,800 more Whites and 106,800 more non-Whites would be in employment. When you allow for the Malays and the Coloureds it probably means that 75,000 more Bantu were expected to be in employment in that one year. Did you realize, Sir, that they underestimated by nearly 73,000 for that one year? Do you realize what a change there has been and how very much greater that inflow has been in the year 1964-’65 despite all the efforts of hon. gentlemen opposite and the loud noises they have been making as to their achievements? Do you realize what that means, Mr. Speaker? It means that if you are to reverse the flow, we would have to start doing without two-thirds of our labour force. Where are we going to get it from because the moment that flow is reversed we cannot take one single extra Bantu in employment. We have to reduce and not bring any more in. That is what is meant by reversing the flow. Where are we going to get the 140,000 or 150,000 extra Bantu who were put into employment in the year 1964-’65 alone? We can replace those that move back but we cannot take on extra Bantu and where do we look for the 75,000 who are required for new jobs if we cannot find Bantu to take their places? What is going to happen to our industries under those conditions? What is going to happen to the efforts of the hon. the Minister of Finance to keep South Africa on an even keel? Let us look at the picture again in respect of the forecast for the four years 1965 to 1969. Our labour requirements were estimated at 158,000 more Whites and 485,000 more non-Whites. It is quite clear already that that is an underestimate and a very serious one. These numbers are however required if we are to maintain our growth at the 5½ per cent per annum which the Minister of Finance has set his heart upon and which is so vitally important to maintain the standard of living in South Africa. At least two-thirds of that labour force is going to be Bantu. But if we are to believe the hon. gentleman opposite then eight or nine years after that we are suddenly going to find that we do not need that number of additional workers. Where are we going to get them from and how are we going to maintain our rate of growth and development? The only reply that we have had from hon. gentlemen opposite is that we shall maintain our rate of growth by the use of mechanization and automation. I think we ought to be clear about what we mean by mechanization. I take mechanization to mean the position where a machine does the work which was previously done by human beings and that machine is minded by human beings.

Automation means that the machine takes over the minding work as well and takes the place of the human being who was minding that machine. Are we going to mechanize to the extent that we can do without two-thirds of our labour force? Are we going to reduce our requirements to that extent? You see, automation is a most expensive business and for us to have automation on an economic basis in South Africa, we require very much larger markets than we have at the present time. The only way we can get those markets is either by export or increasing our internal markets. The only way in which we can increase the internal market is by having more Bantu in gainful employment. I must say that I do not see this as anything of an answer at all. The experience overseas has been that while automation increased production, it did not necessarily reduce the labour force. In fact, the experience in most countries has been that despite automation, there are still the same if not greater numbers of workers in employment.

Working shorter and shorter hours.

This may well be but they are still in employment and they still need jobs and they still have to be fed. It does not seem to me that that offers a solution at all to this problem. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that if hon. gentlemen opposite are right, then you have to find jobs somewhere else for 90,000 Bantu every year who are looking for new jobs? How is this going to be done? That is what their population growth is and it will mean 90,000 new jobs every year for Bantu. Where are we going to find those jobs for them? It is all very well to talk about mechanization and automation. What are you going to do with those whom you send back to the reserves? If you are to create new industries in the reserves for those people, then you require capital. Where is this capital coming from?

Look at what has happened in our economic development programme. We calculated that with a gross capital formation of R1,653 million in 1965, the total labour demand would be 140,000. If you are going to find new jobs for 90,000 Bantu in the reserves at the same time, it means that you have got to divert R 1,000 million to the reserves to create industries to provide these people with jobs. Where is that capital formation coming from for the reserves—R 1,000 million a year, not only for one year but each year, and growing every year with greater demand. I say that this year 1978 and the promises made about it, repeated not so long ago by the hon. the Deputy Minister, have bedevilled our thinking for a long time and there has never been a scientific basis for that forecast given to this House, nor have we had proper indications of who are responsible for it. It has been a great mystery. I asked the late Prime Minister who did this work and who was responsible for it. I never got a clear answer. The last time we talked about it he mentioned amongst others the name of the late Professor Fourie. The late Professor Fourie was very well-known to me and I wrote to him on this subject.

I received from him a copy in his own handwriting prepared by himself of the projection that was made in 1954-’55. Here it is, signed by him, drawn up in his own handwriting, a copy of the work that was done in 1955. He draws attention to the conditions which he endorsed upon it. Let us now look at that forecast on which the former Prime Minister apparently based some of his predictions. We find that already its forecast as to population growth is hopelessly out. It expected a growth in total Bantu population in the years 1951 -’61 from 8,500,000 to 9,900,000. Do you realize, Sir, that by 1960 the Bantu population was already 10,900.000? So that that forecast was already a million out. Secondly the forecast expected an increase in the Bantu population outside the reserves in that same ten-year period, namely 1951 -’61, of 420,000. Do you know what the figure turned out to be according to the last census? Over a period of nine years—not ten years— the figure was 2,380,000. In other words, the growth was approximately six times greater than what they forecast in this projection. Why has that happened? I will tell you why it has happened, Sir. It has happened because the three conditions which they laid down as the fundamental for their graph when they forecast the possible change in 1976 or 1978 have not been fulfilled by this Government.

Now, what were those three conditions? The first was that the development programmes proposed by the Commission would be put into operation in 1956. You know, Mr. Speaker, that those programmes were not accepted, and they were never put into operation in their entirety. The work did not start with any enthusiasm or any zest in 1956. We know that the Government turned down some of the fundamental recommendations. The programme that it did put into operation never kept pace with the time-table laid down by the Tomlinson Commission in 1954-’55 on which this projection was based. That is the first thing. If that is the position, how can these people still claim to attach any importance to the forecast for the year 1978?

The second thing is that the relationship between the numbers of Bantu in and out of the reserves according to this projection should remain the same in 1965 as in 1951. There has been a small change, but not a very great one, so I do not propose to labour that point.

They laid down a third condition, and that is that development be undertaken at a tempo which results in the population of the reserves growing at a steady rate to reach 8 million in 20 years’ time, that is by 1976. What has been the position? It is now over ten years since that projection was made, and according to the forecast there were to be 5.3 million Bantu outside the reserves in 1961. In fact, by 1960 the figure was 7 million. Not 5.3 million but 7 million Bantu were outside the reserves. Where we expected 4.6 million in the reserves by 1961 the figure is only 3,800,000—close on 1 million less than it should have been. Although it is very difficult to obtain accurate figures, my belief is that the population of the reserves is not growing very much. My belief is that it is remaining fairly static. Because what is happening is that we are getting an overflow into the White areas which is exactly what the Tomlinson Commission forecast would happen unless development took place at the rate and the tempo which they suggested and which they recommended.

I do not think that that projection can be relied upon by the Government as being scientifically accurate after those facts have been drawn to the attention of hon. gentlemen on the other side. I make bold to say that I do not think that any hon. gentleman on the other side is going to make use of this projection again as suggesting that 1978 is going to see the turning point.

You will see it long before then.

Mr. Speaker, there are strange people who rush in where angels fear to tread. To return to the point I was making, Sir—if that is no basis, what other basis is there? Who else has done the work? Where has this come from? When last we discussed it in the House the then Minister drew my attention to a graph which had been published in the Tomlinson Commission’s report itself and was used as a projection in volume 16 of chapter 47, at page 19. If one looks at that Commission’s report and one looks at the legend attached to that projection, what does one find? I will quote what it says—

My hon. friend asks what is wrong with that. He is not suggesting that they accepted the Tomlinson Commission’s report in its entirety. He is not suggesting for one moment that they have developed border industries at the rate which Tomlinson requested, to give employment to 30,000 a year over the first ten years. Where are they heading? After 11 years even the optimistic new Deputy Minister can only claim that they have given employment in border industries to 41,000 Bantu. There are some of us who wonder whether that figure is correct. That is exactly what is happening at the moment. The odd thing about the projection is that if one goes through it one finds it is based on a total Bantu population of 9,900,000 by 1961. As I have said, that forecast is already proved to be more than 1 million out. I believe that it is possibly due to wrong counting. I believe that the census in 1951 was not properly made, and I believe that in 1961 it was more accurate. That may account for a small part of the discrepancy, but it cannot account for the whole, and there is a very big discrepancy indeed.

If one looks at it one finds that in making this estimate the committee responsible for drafting the projection lay emphasis on the difficulties that could arise from the shortage of capital. Have I not drawn attention to that already? I referred to a capital formation of probably R1,000 million a year to take up the surplus labour. They lay emphasis on the educational revolution that will have to take place amongst the Bantu people. They lay emphasis on the vital importance of developing their skills in various trades and industries in order to give these reserves an opportunity of carrying a population of that kind. Those were the conditions they laid down.

If one looks at the projection, even though those conditions are accepted, then there is no indication in their projection that the number of Bantu in the White areas will start decreasing from 1978. If one carefully works out what the projection means, one finds that there are going to be 4,600,000 Bantu in the reserves in 1956, and 4,300,000 outside the reserves. They forecast that by 1966 there would be 6,000,000 in the reserves and 5,000,000 outside.

If the United Party had been in power, it would have been three times as bad.

May I accept, Sir, that the hon. the Chief Whip is admitting defeat on behalf of the Government? He cannot say that he is going to succeed; all he can say is that the position would be worse if we were in power. Sir, how can they go on making these statements and basing their policy on it when according to this projection the number of Bantu in the White areas goes on increasing year after year—well after the year 2000—and shows no indication of ceasing to increase? Sir, that is no justification for the claim that the number of Bantu outside the reserves can ever be decreased. Nobody knows better than this Minister that the conditions laid down by the commission were not accepted by the Government, and I believe that nobody knows better than this Minister that the rate of development in the reserves has been infinitely slower than that projected or asked for by the commission. I think nobody knows better than the Minister that what in fact is happening is that quite ten years before this turning point the Bantu population of the reserves is hardly growing at all, it is virtually remaining constant, and the increase has been outside the reserves. Sir, nobody knows better than hon. members opposite that this Government has accepted an economic development programme which provides for a 5½ per cent growth in the economy annually, and that means additional employment over the next five years for approximately 600,000 non-Whites. Tell me, Sir, where are they going to come from? If that rate of development goes on, then the number of Bantu outside the reserves is going to increase even faster than in the past. Now, Sir, what has happened? This Government has been faced with a break-down of its theories. It is unable to bring any scientific proof to establish scientifically the basis for its claim…

You want to “hands-up”?

It is faced with the complete failure of its programme to attract industries to border areas at anything like the tempo envisaged by the Tomlinson Commission. What does the Government do? It does not set about a vast programme of development in the reserves to attract Native labour back to the reserves as Tomlinson envisaged; it will not allow private White capital, private White initiative and White skill into the reserves, nor does it really tackle the border development programme with any vigour. What does it start doing with vigour? It tries to cut back on the labour to be used in certain areas, regardless of whether there is work for that labour elsewhere …

You are talking nonsense.

… and regardless also of the economic consequences at a national level or even at a local level of what they are doing. Instead the Government does something else. It prohibits the establishment of certain labour-intensive industries in certain areas in the hope of forcing them into so-called border areas, regardless of whether they will be able to produce there as economically as in the areas which they would have chosen for themselves, and they say that that is all part of a five-point programme to reduce the number of Bantu in the White areas. Sir, what has the effect been? Mr. Speaker, other speakers will talk of the effect on other parts of South Africa: I want to talk of the effect in the Western Cape since the hon. the Deputy Minister has been operating in this area, because this area was to be the guinea-pig, the area from which all Bantu labour was to be removed and gradually replaced by Coloured labour. Well, the Government has been at it for some time. It was several years ago that we were told that Bantu labour here was going to be removed and replaced by Coloured labour.

The Eiselen Line.

Sir, what was the figure last year? The figure last year for the magisterial districts of Cape Town, Wyn-berg, Simonstown and Bellville was 13,000 more Bantu in employment in those magisterial districts; and in the same magisterial districts, with Paarl, Malmesbury and Stellenbosch included, the unemployment figure is 311 Coloureds. Sir, where are the Coloureds to come from to replace that Bantu labour?

How many Coloureds do you expect to be in the Western Cape by 1980?

Sir, I am always interested when a hon. gentleman comes along and asks me how many Coloureds I expect here by this year or there by that year.

It can easily be worked out; your Chamber of Industries can work it out.

The hon. gentleman says that it can easily be worked out, and yet they were a million out over five years between 1955 and 1960. It is no good talking to me about projections of that kind. The hon. gentleman knows that those projections are useless. I am not talking about what the position is going to be in 1980. I am talking about what the position is now and what that hon. gentleman is doing to the economy of the Western Cape.

You know all about the Bantu position in 1978 but you do not know about the position of the Coloureds in 1980.

Sir, that hon. Deputy Minister knows nothing about the position of the Bantu in 1978…

Neither do you.

… he has been misleading the public and telling them that there will be a reversal of the flow in 1978. Sir, when he makes statements of that kind he ought to be ashamed of himself, because he is telling me now that he does not know what the figure will be, and yet he is prepared to go on to a political platform and promise a reversal of the flow by 1978. Despite the limited numbers of unemployed Coloureds, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education talks of recruits from amongst the unemployed Coloureds here and elsewhere. Sir, when you look at the area of the Western Cape, you find that it is variously described but it seems to consist of everything west of the Eiselen Line, that is to say, the Humansdorp/Colesberg line, but I understand that now it is going to be extended even further to the Fish River/Aliwal North line if one is to accept the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Planning some time last month. But, Sir, let us work on the old line because we have not got the figures for the new line. Perhaps the Cabinet Committee concerned can give us the figure for the new line in due course. If you work on the old line, I think there are approximately 255,000 Bantu in the area; that is excluding Port Elizabeth and the Uitenhage complex. But if you look at the figure of unemployed Coloured males in the whole of the Republic, according to the last figures given in answer to a question in this House on the 31st January, then the total unemployment figure for the Republic in respect of Coloured males is 2,451 and 1,095 in respect of Coloured females. Sir, they are going to replace 255,000 Bantu at present gainfully employed in the area.

They will have to work hard!

It seems a very tall order for those 3,000 or 4,000 Coloureds, male and female, to replace 255,000 Bantu in this area, even over a period of time. But, Sir, having given you those figures, I want to tell you that it is to this end that the hon. the Deputy Minister has virtually frozen the supply of Bantu labour in certain areas here in the Western Cape and asked for reductions, with the excuse that he has had to do it because of the housing shortage. Well, Sir, I wonder what the effect has been to date?

I will tell you.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he knew it would create a crisis. I wonder if he knew just what the crisis was going to be because it has been very interesting to see some of the statements which have been made. First there was Mr. Barrett, the chairman of the Western Cape Development Association. Presumably he knows what he is talking about, and this is what he says—

Then there was Mr. Mossop, retiring President of the Cape Chamber of Industries. This is what he says—

I think the hon. the Minister of Transport will agree that he has taken on between 700 and 800 extra Bantu in the Docks because he could not get on without them. [Interjections.] The Minister of Transport brought them from the Transkei and put them in Bishop Lavis. [Interjections.] Mr. Mossop goes on and talks about the higher education of the Coloured people and he emphasizes their unwillingness to do certain kinds of work. Then he says—

But this hon. gentleman tells me that he has the support of industry; they are all on his side, according to him, but this is the report we find in the Press. Then there is the official statement of the Cape Chamber of Industries of 8th December—

Then they had an interview with me, and what happened?

Wait a moment. I am coming to that interview. It seems that the Deputy Minister is becoming apprehensive. Then we had a statement from Mr. Goldberg of the Cape Chamber of Industries. He deals with the difficulties of particular employers and industries, stressing the position of the quarry and brick-making industries, and he emphasizes that cuts in the Western Cape production will very soon have an adverse effect on the whole national economy. Then there was the statement by Mr. Lee, the Director of the Cape Chamber of Industries. He expected matters to become chaotic if the Government did not ease its policy. He pointed out that normal industrial growth has in the past steadily driven up the demand for Native labour by an average of 1.45 per cent a year. He pointed out that replacements would have to be found for a large number of Natives who would, but for the Government policy, have come here in the next year. He also pointed out that under pressure from the Government many employers had already reduced the proportion of Natives working for them. One firm had cut the percentage of Native labour from 80 to 30 per cent. Another had reduced its Native work forces by 40 per cent. A third had replaced 100 out of 250.

Hear, hear!

The Deputy Minister says “Hear, hear!”, but this, according to Mr. Lee, was rockbottom; any further reduction would hamper operations. [Interjections.] Despite the rude statements the Minister made, he of course did modify his policy. He had this interview with the Chamber and he said that the 5 per cent was flexible.

I said that right at the start.

He agreed to the appointment of an advisory committee which was to advise him on how to replace Bantu with Coloureds and also to advise him in respect of which industries it was essential to have Bantu labour. I want to know whether he will accept the advice in that regard. You see, Sir, this is just dealing with industry, but the manufacturing industry does not employ such a very large percentage of the Bantu in the area. In fact, the Minister, when he spoke to the Chamber of Industries, told them that they were good boys who had been carrying out his policy, but the number of Bantu was still increasing. You see, Sir, the big demand has been in the service industry, and that is where costs have been pushed up. The Railways have had their troubles. The building industry has tremendous troubles because it can keep its contract labour for a certain period only. The Bantu do unskilled work, it is true, but they no sooner get used to the work, after a period of about 12 months, when they have to go back to the reserves, and the building industry has to take in a new man and train him again. That adds to their costs. Then there is the brick industry, and here there is a statement made by Major Hare, the Chairman of the Western Province Brick and Clay Manufacturers, and this statement was made after the interview on 20th January—

His production is reduced by 40 per cent. Then lie goes on to say—

Then there is the Cape Dairymen’s Association. They are up in arms.

They are not. You can get all the milk you need.

This Minister says that the delivery of milk is out of date. I hope to see him every morning walking down to the cows’ stables to get his milk. The delivery of newspapers is also out of date.

I get my milk and my newspapers and then I have to read your bad speeches also.

Something else is happening in this area. The Department of Bantu Administration has now blocked the creation of certain further industrial areas in the Peninsula because it fears the influx of more Bantu workers. That will be dealt with by other speakers, but you see already the disruption that has been caused by the threat. We have seen the Minister having had to change his policy already, but he is determined to go ahead and keep the pressure up. It is not only on industry that it is having an effect. What about the farmers in the Western Cape under this policy? As early as 1965 the farmers were already in trouble. There was a statement from a Mr. J. J. de Villiers, who was chairman of the Durbanville Farmers’ Association, who said this—

Then he spoke about salaries on his own farm having doubled in a period of about two years. So the position last year was very much worse. Here is a letter published by Die Burger at length from a farmer at Vredenburg. I want to read just two passages from it because they are so typical of my own experience when visiting those areas. He says:

He goes on:

Mr. Speaker, that gives you an idea of the difficulties. What did the farmers do? They got together in the Durbanville/Philadelphia area and they formed their own co-operative in order to get Bantu from the reserves to come and work on their farms. They did it with the full approval of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. They were quite successful for a while. Several other cooperatives were formed. Last year at the end of November or the beginning of December two new organizations, one from Paarl and the other from the Worcester/Hex River area, went on a deputation to the Deputy Minister and were very satisfied because they got certain concessions from him.

[Inaudible.]

Did you still insist on the R25 down payment for every labourer? Or was that relaxed?

I hope they did.

I think you will find that you did not. I am certainly under the impression that he did not.

Twenty days later, what happened? The whole position was reversed. It was laid down that those who had not had Bantu in their employment before, could not get Bantu. It was laid down that their labour complement was frozen as at the 31st August—I must confess for seasonal industries it was another date —and they could get no additional labour without the intervention of the Minister. They were asked to reduce their labour force by 5 per cent a year.

Quite right.

The hon. gentleman says “Quite right”. Sir, of the 230 farmers in the Worcester/Hex River area applying for Bantu labour, only 50 qualified. Of the 110 who applied from Paarl, only 30 qualified for Bantu labour. To the great satisfaction of the Minister. What is the situation with regard to the farming community? This is what Die Burger said on the 30th January:

So far I have had six applications for additional Bantu labour from farmers.

The Deputy Minister says he has had six applications from farmers. I can promise him that once it is known that he is prepared to consider those applications at all sympathetically, he will not get six. He will get hundreds, because this is the area which, according to the Minister of Finance, is going to be the worst hit if Great Britain joins the Common Market. This is the area which plays a very large part in our export industry. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister think he is making it easier for farmers with these regulations? Does he think he is keeping down the costs of production? Does he not think that he is going to force up wages by limiting labour? Is he not going to force the farmers to compete with the fishing industries on the west coast and the industries in the towns?

May I ask you a question?

Certainly. [Interjections.]

Order! The Deputy Minister may not deliver his speech sitting down.

Is it the policy of the Leader of the Opposition to give Bantu labour to the farmers on demand?

Mr. Speaker, I have never said that it is my policy to give it to them on demand. I am, however, not going to restrict it so artificially that I force up labour costs in the area. I am certainly not going to restrict it in such a way that development on the farms is prevented. I am certainly not going to restrict it in such a way that a new young farmer buying a farm and wanting to start cannot get labour. Does the hon. gentleman know what is happening in this area? Does he know how the price of land is going up and how the farmers are having to intensify their production on limited areas with more labour? Does he know what mechanization costs on a farm to-day? It seems to me that, without any survey of the position, this hon. gentleman goes blindly forward. What guarantee has a farmer now that he can develop, that he can expand? Is this covered by the hon. the Minister’s statement that new development and expansion based on Native labour will not be considered, or is the farmer going to be allowed to develop and expand?

That is the position throughout the country; not only in the Western Cape.

The hon. gentleman says that this applies right through the country. I am glad to have that admission. I was doubtful as to whether it applies right through the country. Thank you for assuring me! Now the Minister of Finance knows where inflation is coming from. Now he knows why prices are being forced up. Let him look to his left to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and let him look to his right to his two extremely zealous Deputy Ministers who are undoing all the work he is trying to do to combat inflation in South Africa.

May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question?

No. The hon. the Minister knows very well that the farmers in this area are accustomed to Coloured labour. They are not anxious to change to Bantu labour. They are being forced to change to Bantu labour by the draining away of Coloured labour by the industries, especially the fishing industries on the West Coast and the manufacturing industries in the towns. Their costs are being forced up. What this Minister is doing is making the position infinitely worse for them. We have already had reports in this House from one hon. member of how farmers were stealing each other’s labour at different times of the year.

They were doing it last Sunday again.

That is what the hon. the Minister is forcing on the farming community in the Western Cape who are trying to make a decent living under this Government.

What has been the reaction of the hon. the Minister to the sort of situation that he has created? Here are some exerpts from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s interview with Die Burger—

Do you know, Sir, I can see him employed by any farming organization to canvas Coloured labour for them. He would starve, because he would not get it. He continues—

The poor Minister of Transport, Sir. We know what trouble he has, and yet the hon. the Deputy Minister makes a statement of that kind. He continued—

That is what this hon. gentleman said. The report continued—

Yes, but how are they going to compete with their cost structure forced with higher Railway rates and because of the difficulty arising because of the distance from their markets? Does the hon. member know what the position is as regards industrial townships in this area? Does he know how much development there has been? He has spoken of having industry on his side and his advisory committee. Is he going to listen to them when they tell him, as they will, that in certain industries it is impossible to do without Bantu labour or is he going to force the issue? Is he going to listen to them when they tell him that if the Western Cape is to go on developing, the probability is that they are going to need more Bantu labour? Has he done a survey of this area to find out what labour is necessary and where it is coming from? The hon. member does not even fetch his milk every morning, and I doubt whether he will fetch his newspaper. What is the reaction of business circles in Cape Town? I will tell the House what the general reaction of business circles is to this activity. It is that the Minister’s action is weakening the ability of this part of the country to contribute its rightful share to the economy of the country and secondly that it is increasing inflationary influences which must have an effect upon the whole country.

There are four points to which I want to draw attention. Already planning in the area has been stultified and the proclamation of new industrial areas is being held up by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Secondly, there is an additional burden to the Western Cape, over and above its existing competitive difficulties, as a result of the increasing of Railway rates last year. Thirdly sections of Cape industry are not achieving optimum development and the region is industrially not keeping pace with the development achieved elsewhere. It is interesting to note how much of the land zoned for industries in this area remains undeveloped. At Worcester the seat of the former Minister of Finance over 70 per cent of the industrial township is undeveloped. That has been the progress! Lastly, the whole idea of the business community is that this concept of removing all Bantu from the Western Cape is an impossible pipe dream that can seriously disrupt the economy of the area at a time when it may be hard hit by Britain’s entry into the common market. For all those reasons I believe I am justified in moving the amendment which I have already read to the House.

And for the reason of the Worcester election.

I am not surprised that the hon. the Prime Minister is disturbed about the Worcester election. I can tell him that I have had deputation after deputation of farmers to see me and not only from the Worcester area.

Why do they come to you?

They come to me because they know that I am a farmer and that I know what I am talking about. Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that what is happening here is making the task of the Minister of Finance more and more difficult and contributing towards inflationary tendencies in the country. Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, during the motion of no confidence the hon. the Prime Minister said that he and the Leader of the Opposition were not the two leading economists in this House or in the country. Now I am quite convinced that the Leader of the Opposition is definitely not. Let us consider one of the statements made by him. He said that we were aware of the extent to which prices of farms in the Western Province had been increasing. Why are those prices increasing? Is it because I am ruining the farmers so much? Who buys that land? The farmers who I am ruining so much? He admitted that the economy of the Western Province had never been more sound than at the present time. His entire argument was that I was ruining the economy of the Western Province. What an absurd argument. I want to congratulate him on having scraped up the courage to get round to Bantu policy. In course of time I was beginning to feel disheartened. We are a Minister and two Deputy Ministers and during the motion of no confidence we waited for him to get round to that subject. I said to my friend next to me that it seemed to me that he did not want to get round to that subject and that we seemed to have worked ourselves out of our jobs. I am pleased that he got round to that subject in this debate.

I am pleased that he got round to Worcester as well.

Yes, we shall come to Worcester. I am going to make no secret about it and for as far as you, Sir, will allow me to do so—and to me you seem to be in a good mood, Mr. Speaker—I am not going to count my words. I am not going to beat about the bush. I am going to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition exactly what he is trying to do to the Western Cape as well as to the rest of the Republic of South Africa. He wants to try to make it Black in a way which must lead to the downfall of the White man in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am telling him that his entire argument this afternoon was for the unlimited inflow of Bantu labour into the Western Cape. The industries must get as much as they demand. The farmers must get as much as they demand. When I asked him whether he was going to supply Bantu labour on demand, he said that it must be controlled. That is what I am trying to do. I am controlling it. I shall tell him how I control it.

It is not my fault if there are certain farmers or certain industrialists who take notice of the nonsense published in his newspapers and who make deductions which are not justified. Who said that that 5 per cent was inflexible? No one is so stupid that he would have said that. That much is obvious. I am trying to control it. I told farmers recently that if they wanted seasonal labour they had to come to me. Up to the present time I have had six applications for additional Bantu labour. Where are the farmers who have such a shortage of labour? However, there are farmers who did not have a single Bantu labourer last year but who now want 50. There is one farmer who did not have one such labourer last year and then wanted 150 but after he and I had finished our discussions he was quite satisfied with 15. That constitutes control. There is no objection to seasonal labour, but that is something we can settle at Worcester, and I shall tell the rest of the country, also the Western Cape, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party want the Western Cape to become totally Black, not only as far as Bantu labour is concerned, but also as far as the families of those Bantu are concerned. He wants to allow Bantu labour in on a family basis. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to deny that. That leading expert on the U.N., wants to deny that! The hon. member for Wynberg shed crocodile-tears here the other day about the Bantu who were here without their families. The hon. member for Bezuiden-hout wanted to cry with her, but he has become so cynical that he can no longer cry. Now I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or any other speaker opposite, to tell this House whether it is their policy to bring Bantu labour into the Western Cape at the demand of industries and farmers and whether they want to allow that to be done on a family basis. This is a fair question.

And you have had the answer.

If I have the answer, the hon. member for Pinelands will surely not mind repeating the answer for me. That is their policy and that is what we shall rub in at Worcester and everywhere else, and we shall see what consequences that will have. I make the statement, and I repeat it, that the United Party wants to allow Bantu labour into the Western Cape on demand and it wants to allow that to be done, on a family basis. They do not want to separate the husband from the wife, they do not want to separate families, they cannot find it in their small Christian hearts to do so. But at the same time they maintain that the inflow should be controlled. Yet they do not have a single word of pity for the many thousands of Bantu mine-workers who have been coming to South Africa for many years on a contractual and single basis, because as long as the friends of hon. members opposite can make money from that, they are perfectly satisfied. The mine-workers may be without their wives and families for 18 months, but as long as the friends of hon. members opposite can make money from that, there is no objection in principle, there is no moral objection. And then one has to listen to all this nonsense.

I shall tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what his difficulty is. They want to make the entire economy of this country dependent on Bantu labour.

But it is dependent on Bantu labour.

They want to make it more and more dependent on Bantu labour. I shall tell you what is making the, hon. the Leader of the Opposition fidgety. He is seeing that he is losing the support of organized industry in South Africa. He lost the support of organized agriculture long ago. At the moment he is losing the support of organized commerce and industry. He spoke here about border industries and said that the Government was establishing border industries on ideological grounds and not on economic grounds. He also said that organized industry was against the Government. I should now like to read to him from the latest report of the Natal Chamber of Industries in respect of border industries—

That is no example—it proves nothing.

I want to prove to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the Chamber of Industries in Natal now supports border industries in all respects, as do other chambers of industries.

Where?

The Johannesburg Chamber of Industries and the South African Chamber of Industries. I notice that many tales are carried to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition relating to interviews which I have had with these people. I now challenge the Leader of the Opposition to go to Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Mossop and to inquire from them whether they did not tell me that the S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries supported border industries in principle. I challenge him.

Decentralization yes.

Yes, decentralization, of course. What is the difference? They went further and expressed their satisfaction with the way in which border industries were now being established. However, I am not going to let the hon. member escape from what I am going to read now. I am quoting from the report of the Natal Chamber of Industries—

that means to border industries—

—that is precisely the hon. member’s objection—

I agree entirely with that, because it is always necessary to watch matters of course.

This is what the Natal Chamber of Industries said, and I now challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—he has the entire day at his disposal and may telephone—to obtain an official statement from any other Chamber of Industries in South Africa to the effect that they are opposed to the establishment of border industries. I challenge him to do so. He complained here that this industrialist and that industrialist were complaining. Now I challenge him to obtain such a statement from one of the chairmen of one of the chambers of industries. He will not obtain one and that is what is hurting him so very much.

As regards the year 1978 I repeat what I said—and not what the hon. member read in certain newspapers—and that is that I stake my political reputation on the turning point coming by 1978, and I agree with the hon. member for Krugersdorp that it may come earlier than 1978.

I now want to come to the Western Cape, and I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this decrease of 5 per cent suggested by me has been wholly accepted by the Chamber of Industries of the Western Cape. I attended one of their meetings and explained the position. We discussed the matter for a long time and one after the other they rose, for example, Mr. Mossop, Mr. Marx, Mr. I. L. Back and others whose names I cannot recall, and said that they supported that policy. I have here a statement which they were prepared to issue in conjunction with me, but I refused to sign it because I did not like the last part. They wanted me to accept the recommendations of the advisory committee. Why should I do so, Sir? After all, I am the Deputy Minister and not them. I am a reasonable man, and I shall listen to them. They were prepared to sign, with me, the following recommendation—

Where feasible, yes.

Of course, “feasible”. The Chamber of Industries was prepared to sign this statement with me.

Now I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is not the policy of this Government, and I shall not do so, to supply Bantu labour to industrialists or to farmers or to dealers on demand. I shall simply not do so. I say here now that there is a fantastic waste of Bantu labour in the Western Cape, just as there is a fantastic waste of Bantu labour in the rest of the industrial areas in South Africa. I say to the industrialist that they will have to eliminate the fantastic waste of Bantu labour, because they will get no mercy from me. I shall give you an example, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to mention any names, but there is a large industry in the Western Cape, a respectable industry, decent people, who wanted 80 Bantu from the Transkei. They had 80 last year and wanted 80 again. They came to see me and explained their problems to me. I said to them that they could not get 80 but that they could in fact get 76. They said that was fine and thanked me. I imposed the condition, however, that they had to accommodate the Bantu themselves. I undertook to give them the necessary land at Langa and Nyanga but said that they had to accommodate the Bantu themselves and that they themselves had to pay for the accommodation. They thereupon went to the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner and told him that I had said that they could get 76 Bantu. He replied that I had informed him accordingly and because they had to provide the necessary accommodation he asked them to submit the necessary plans and the engineers reports on when the houses would be completed, whereupon he would issue the necessary permit for the Bantu to come here. Their application arrived ten days later but then they no longer wanted 76—they were quite satisfied with 42 only. To-day they are still satisfied with 42.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister sure that those industrialists are not employing farm labourers at the wages which the farmers paid them?

The hon. member for Sea Point should rather go and sit on his farm instead of farming in Sea Point. The problem of industries drawing labour away from the farms is not one which is confined to the Western Cape.

But that is not the point.

Of course it is. We have exactly the same problem in the Transvaal. I have addressed many farmers’ associations in the Vaal Triangle in an attempt to calm them. One has the same problem on the entire West Rand and in the Middelburg/ Witbank area. The industries there are drawing labour away from the farms and one simply has to face up to the problem and the farmers will simply have to devise some plan or other; there is nothing we can do about that. That problem is precisely the same in the Boland. Mr. Speaker, this now is the kind of thing which the hon. member is saying before the Worcester by-election. I want to prove to him how industries can succeed in decreasing their Bantu labour. After my announcement in connection with a decrease of 5 per cent I received a long letter from the Chamber of Industries in which they stated that they would do everything within their power to assist. In this letter they gave examples to illustrate what progress they had made in their attempts to eliminate Bantu labour. They boast that they are eliminating Bantu labour but the hon. member nags about it; he wants to know how the industries should decrease their Bantu labour. The Chamber of Industries mentioned the following examples and they boasted that they had succeeded in decreasing Bantu labour—

And, Mr. Speaker, here is the curious fact of the matter: In each of these industries production has not decreased but increased. One can manage with less Bantu labour here and on the Witwatersrand without any prejudice to the economy of the country.

Why then are the numbers increasing?

Because more industries are coming into being; because there is greater economic development. We are going to stop the influx of Bantu labour; we are going to change that process without prejudice to the country’s economy, as I shall indicate in a short while. Hon. members of the Opposition simply want to let things take their course; their policy is a laissez fairepolicy. They want the Bantu to stream in; they want to allow industrialists to employ as many Bantu as they like; they pay no attention to the social problems. They reason in the same way as the sugar farmers in Natal reasoned when they could not get labour and allowed Indians and Chinese into the country, and just look with what problems we are saddled to-day. The United Party at present wants to follow that same policy and we shall destroy it on the basis of that policy. Our people have sufficient courage to realize that they cannot sacrifice the future of the White man here for the sake of making a little more money and for the sake of enabling Graaffs’ Trust to pay bigger dividends. We simply will not allow that. But when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition visits the rural areas he is quite prepared to say this type of thing—and he must tell me whether I am quoting him incorrectly—namely that his aim is (translation)—

Sir, if he is going to supply Bantu labourers to the industrialists on demand, how is he going to succeed in maintaining that balance or ratio? What is his plan? How is he going to achieve that? But then the hon. member for Yeoville came forward and said that we were more and more dependent on Bantu labourers. I am quoting from what appeared in Die Burger (translation)—

That is indeed true.

No, that is not true. We could become less dependent if we just guided things in the right direction, and it is the intention of this Government to do so.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

No, I have already replied to many questions and my time is limited. The hon. member for Yeoville said (translation)—

We are still more dependent on Black labour in South Africa than ever before in our history. Unless we accept that, we are heading for a very difficult situation.

In other words, their policy is one of unlimited black labour.

Surrender.

Yes, their policy is one of surrender. Let us hang on for the next 20 years; let us hang on for the next 25 years. The National Party says that this White nation has an inalienable and indestructible right to survival here; we shall succeed in that without an influx of Bantu labour to our cities.

Where are you establishing industries without Bantu labour?

The hon. member wants to know where we are establishing industries without Bantu labour. The other day I approved an industry situated between African Explosives and K.O.P., an industry with an investment of R1 million. That industry employs 65 Whites and 42 Bantu. I can mention another industry here in the Cape. There is for example Killarney which does not employ a single Bantu and which produces 30 million bricks per annum. It does not employ a single Bantu. Nylon Spinners, one of the largest factories in the Cape, does not employ a single Bantu. Then there is the other case I mentioned the other day, namely that of Brickor which made 60 million bricks with a labour complement of between 600 and 720 Bantu; at present it makes the same quantity of bricks with a Bantu complement of 60. These things can be done.

Can it manage without those 60?

Sir, this is also the trend in the rest of the world. The trend is to push out one’s labour-intensive industries— in South Africa’s one Bantu labour-intensive industries—even if one has to employ coercive measures, to one’s border areas, and to draw one’s capital-intensive industries to one’s large, urban areas. That is what is happening in London. I can also mention the case of Mr. Campbell Pritt of Nortan Abrasives. I have his permission to mention the case here. He said that they wanted to extend their factory in London on their own land and that the British Board of Trade told them, “Not a single brick on another; if you want to extend you must go to Northern Ireland, to a depressed area”. This is being done in London to alleviate the traffic problem there.

What was the reason?

The reason was that London’s traffic problem was beginning to become impossible, and our social problem regarding the presence of Bantu in one’s White cities is beginning to become impossible. This social problem is strangling and destroying the White nation in South Africa. We will simply not allow it, and I make this gift to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with a view to the Worcester by-election: Our policy is to decrease the flow of Bantu labour to the cities; I admit that we have not yet succeeded in doing so. Our policy therefore is to arrest the flow and after that has been accomplished to reverse the flow with the least measure of economic sacrifice possible, but even if that would mean economic sacrifice, we should still be able to do so. The Government would like the national growth in South Africa to be somewhere between 5 per cent to 5½ per cent. What merit is there in Johannesburg growing at a rate of between 7 per cent to 9 per cent each year; why should Johannesburg not grow by 3 per cent and East London by 9 per cent? What is wrong with that?

There are more Natives at East London.

Yes, of course, because East London is situated on the borders of a Bantu area; and then there is the development of one’s Bantu homelands. Unfortunately I do not have the time now to deal with the development of the Bantu homelands but the Government is determined to promote such development to an ever-increasing extent. I do not have the time to go into that now, but the Government is determined to do so and to develop them on a larger scale. And why can that not be done? We are engaged in that and have already made more progress than England has made in Lesotha in 50 years or in Botswana or in Swaziland— the beloved England of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his beloved Wilson. [Laughter.] You can always defend them but never your own country. We have made more economic progress over the last five years in the Transkei under the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation than they have made in those three countries put together, and I think I may throw in the Congo as well. Of course this thing is going to demand sacrifices; of course it is going to exact its toll of hardships. I have been engaged in it long enough to know that it is going to cost blood, sweat and tears. It is going to be no easy task. [Interjections.] I would rather speak like Churchill than like an old fatty like you. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has Churchill’s figure but I have his intellect. [Laughter.] Of course it is going to take hard work and demand sacrifices, but while I was listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his prophecies of doom I said to myself that they were the same prophecies of doom which he made at the time of the referendum and which I made along with them at the time when the Nationalists took over—the banks would close and the industries would come to a standstill and there would be unemployment and “vote for the right to vote again”, and now they stand in mortal fear of an election. However, they will have to fight in Worcester. I say we know the task we have tackled. We know how enormous that task is and we know how difficult it is, but the difference between us and that side of this House is this. If they were in power they would follow a policy which would allow the White nation to survive in this country “for the foreseeable future”. We reject that policy in its entirety. We say the White nation will not survive here “for the foreseeable future” only; it has an inexorable right to survive here, and as far as the National Party is concerned, and as regards my modest share in that, I shall do so by day and by night.

Having listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I think we can appreciate how it is that the Government manages to keep the support of the electorate. In the first place they make no attempt whatsoever to justify their predictions and their policy, that they will reduce the number of Blacks in the White areas. They make no attempt whatever to do this. They avoid it like the plague. They crack a lot of jokes and that takes us nowhere. Furthermore, they proceed to misrepresent the policy of their opponents to the nth degree, and to this, moreover, in the fact of a clear statement by the Leader of the Opposition in reply to a direct question. But notwithstanding that, we get blatant misrepresentation of our policy.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should put it in that way.

I did not say it was intentional.

It does not matter.

I withdraw the word. We get obvious misrepresentation of our policy.

That is still worse.

Well, it is clear that it is obviously incorrect.

No, the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

On a point of order, surely a misrepresentation must be obvious to be discerned at all.

But the hon. member started off with something much stronger and he is sticking to that word “misrepresentation”, which means the same thing as the words he used in the first instance.

On a point of order, one can misrepresent unintentionally. A blatant misrepresentation means an obvious misrepresentation. He did not say it was done intentionally.

I am not going to argue about it. The hon. member may proceed.

This is the speaker the Government has put up to deal with this question, and all we get in the way of a statement of policy is this type of thing, “Ons kan die getalle verminder as ons dit in die regte rigting stuur”. This is the type of generalization: “Waarom kan dit nie gedoen word nie?” “Dit gaan opoffering eis.” That is the typical sort of thing we have been getting from them for 18 years. For 18 years they have had this great ideal of increasing the separation between the races. For 18 years this has been their glorious policy, but far from greater and greater separation we have had less and less separation. The rough figures for the towns were that there were two million Natives in the towns in 1948 and there are four million now, but this does not discourage a man like the hon. the Deputy Minister. He thinks he is achieving his policy most beautifully when he says farmers came to him in the Western Cape and said they needed 150 labourers in one case and 60 labourers in another case, and they went away satisfied with ten or 20 Native labourers. But the numbers are going up all the time and we realize that they have to go up. The whole deceit of the policy is that they keep on feeding the people of South Africa on the deception that these numbers will be reduced and that we will live happily ever after in this snowy white land, when they should know by now that the very opposite is happening. And of course to cover it up we have to get the bluff Deputy Minister to come and crack jokes by the dozen to keep his supporters in good humour. This may be all very well to win a debate or to win the Worcester election, and it may be possible to win some future elections on that basis, but it is not going to give us one iota of respect for the Government or its policy, and the way they carry on is not in the interests of South Africa at all.

I said they were totally misrepresenting our policy: this typical stuff that we stand for the complete “verswarting” of the country; and the Deputy Minister has the nerve to say that in this attitude our policy was one of “hensop”.

Then tell us what your policy is.

When he said that, the Deputy Minister knew what my hon. leader had said at Britstown, that the numbers of Native labourers would be kept to a minimum, and he knew perfectly well that we always had stood for influx control. Indeed, it was the United Party which introduced influx control. But they know that to cheer up the back-benchers and their supporters in the country they must continue to hammer this thing which is a lie. They may be able to cheer them up for some time, but there are thinking members on their side who are not smiling at his tactics and who are not impressed. We have had the Deputy Minister repeating again that he stakes his reputation on the fact that the numbers will be less in 1978 than they are to-day. I ask him to tell me now how many Natives there are in the White areas to-day. I do not believe the Government has the figures, so his reputation is not exactly being put at stake. I ask him and other members to tell us how many Natives there are to-day, and we will hold him to it and we will laugh at him when we are in power, and I am glad to say that that will be in my lifetime. [Interjections.] I am glad to say that it will be in the lifetime I hope of almost all of us. I have got more faith in the electorate of South Africa than to believe that they will for ever follow a Government who said that its policy was ever greater separation and it became more and more obvious that it was ever greater integration. We heard from the hon. the Deputy Minister that there was a “fantastiese vermorsing van arbeid” in South Africa to-day. We have had this Government in power for 18 years and what has it been doing? This is a cornerstone of their policy and why have they done nothing about it if it was so?

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is probably why. They have certainly expanded their Cabinet to a great extent and there is a great deal that could be cut out in that regard without any loss to anybody. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how they chop and change their policy. We remember well how they went steadily for 18 years and how the numbers increased in the way we have indicated. Their late Prime Minister himself said that it is not a violation of his policy if the Natives are present here or even if there is an increase in the number of Natives here. The hon. member for Heilbron in his famous statement said that whether we had 5,000 or 50,000 or five million Natives in the White areas, if we accept their policy, this is no violation of it. It probably cost him a Cabinet post for having said that, because the cat is not meant to be let out of the bag quite as clearly as that. That is what he did and that was their policy then; but in August last year we had the sudden turn of the tide and we had the new hon. Deputy Minister saying he staked his reputation and that the Government was really in earnest. This was of course a complete change. We welcome their trying out their policy and coming up against the facts, so that they can see that this policy of theirs is stupid. We welcome a test with facts and we have indeed now been having it here in the Western Cape. We have been able to see how things are developing and we can see that they are extremely serious indeed. We have had the situation that the quotas are being frozen as from the 31st August. This has two effects. Firstly, nobody who actually employed Bantu labour, may after that date take more into his service. Secondly, nobody who at that date did not engage Bantu labour may take any into his service. There has thus been this very serious limitation placed upon employers. Then there is to be this annual reduction of 5 per cent. Now we have heard here to-day how the farmers are already crying out for labour and approaching the hon. Deputy Minister in order to obtain permission to get this labour. He has now imposed these quotas and frozen the labour. He has moreover said that certain categories of work may not be done by contract Bantu. The clear result of that is going to be that there will be far more Coloureds required in the Cape area to be taken into employment. What will be the result? Clearly, these Coloureds will have to be brought in from the farms with a new and greater twist to the shortage of labour on those farms.

Where is the hon. member for Paarl?

Yes, most of them have left the House. They are probably receiving a deputation from their farmers complaining of a shortage of labour. The hon. the Deputy Minister very cheerfully quoted figures that certain businesses and other undertakings have in fact reduced the numbers of Bantu and increased the numbers of Coloureds in their employ. He thinks that is impressive. Die Burger also featured this quite a lot. I want to tell him that it does not impress me at all. What has happened is that those firms, probably by increasing wages, have unwittingly stolen the Coloured labour from other companies who have thereby, had their Coloured labour reduced.

Did you say that they were stealing labour?

I said that they are unwittingly stealing it because, as I explained it, they have by raising their salaries drawn labour away from the firms in question.

Do you call that stealing?

You know exactly the context in which I used it. Please do not try and pretend that you do not. Mr. Speaker, that is what has happened. These firms have increased their numbers and others have doubtless lost members of their labour force. But you get back to the basic situation that there is no Coloured unemployment here. The hon. Leader of the Opposition gave the figure for Coloured unemployed in the whole country. I should like to add that as far as the Cape Province is concerned the total number of Coloureds, both male and female, unemployed at the present time is about 2,200. It is pure deception to suggest that because certain firms have increased their proportion of Coloured labour they are getting any nearer the solution of the problem.

So you are still “hensopping”?

The hon. member still goes on with this business of “hensopping”. He does not appreciate that our policy of White leadership does not require any particular ratio of White to Black in the whole of South Africa. According to hon. members opposite theirs does. Theirs requires a very definite ratio.

What did your Leader say at Britstown?

He said that it would be kept to a minimum, and it will be; but there is no definite ratio of one to two or one to three as the case may be. It will be kept to a minimum. Quite naturally the policy of those hon. members, where they have stated that by the year 2000 the ratio ought to be fifty-fifty Black and White, requires them to do something about it. Of course they are only getting further and further away and they become more and more the laughing stock of everybody in this regard. [Interjections.] This whole situation, if it were not so serious, would be funny and one could even laugh at it and the hon. the Deputy Minister and his jokes. But we know that in the Western Cape there is a brick shortage developing. We know that the dairies are having difficulty to find people to deliver the milk. We know that there is a growing shortage of stable boys. We know that there is a shortage of farm labour. I am not at all certain that one of the reasons why Cape Town is not always as clean as it should be, is not because of this policy of the Government. It is not possible for the City Council to take into its service the requisite number of people to keep the city clean.

Do they use one Bantu? I will say to the credit of the Cape Town City Council that they only use Coloured labour.

On the contrary, I have the figures here from the City Engineer’s Department and they make use of hundreds of Bantu. [Interjections.] I have got the figures here. I have mentioned the shortages which are already with us but now we have the situation that development is being hamstrung. We know from letters that there have been attempts to increase the industrial area in the Cape Peninsula. If you do not increase the industrial area available, you merely push up the cost of the existing industrial land and this in turn pushes up the cost of the products of the Western Cape and, therefore, reduces their competitiveness. In accordance with natural development an attempt was made to open up a new area to industry, known as Athlone Town Extension No. 9. What do we find here? As far as I can see this has been vetoed by the action of the Government because here we have a letter from the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development saying that they oppose this because it will cause the influx of large numbers of Bantu in the Western Cape, should the industrialists insist on Bantu labour and allege that Coloured labour is not available. This is proof that they are not even prepared to approve the establishment of new industrial land even when a clause is incorporated that Bantu labour may not be used; because they are so aware that there is no Coloured labour and that therefore consent will have to be given to allow Bantu labour to be substituted. This area is obviously already suffering under the heavy hand of the Deputy Minister.

It is interesting to know from the interjection of the hon. member for Heilbron that in fact the whole country is going to feel the pressure of the dead hand of this policy because he has told us—and there have been glimmerings in other statements from the Government side—that in fact they are going to apply this reduction in regard to the whole country.

Did you not complain that we were blackening the rural areas?

Of course we said so. We pointed out that the platteland was becoming blacker and blacker. We certainly say so, but we are quite able to control the position, even though it is as it is, and it is not in conflict with our policy, whereas it is clearly in conflict with theirs. Many farms are over-crowded. That is one of the points we are making. We have heard from the hon. member for Heilbron that in fact the whole country is apparently going to be put into the strait-jacket. They have been very silent so far about their plans for the rest of the country. We very much hope that in this debate we will hear further news about this.

In addition to the limitations that have been imposed, the effect on production and the effect on future expansion, a good deal of human hardship has been caused by this attitude. Various Natives who have been in the Western Cape for countless years have at the drop of a hat often been endorsed out in circumstances which have caused them, and often their employers, considerable hardships. This is an aspect which should not be overlooked when one is considering economic advance and prosperity. The fact remains that, despite these endorsings out, which are often of a very harsh nature, the numbers are increasing steadily.

We had a report in the Press the other day of what the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg had said in his latest annual report. He said that in the last six years the number of Bantu in the Johannesburg magisterial district has risen by 230,000. At the same time the White population has increased by a mere 38,000. This was a report in the newspapers of the 16th January of this year. We know that the same position exists in Cape Town. Despite the many often very harsh endorsements out, we know that there have never been more Native people in the Cape Peninsula. We know that the position is so serious that a large number of them do not have proper housing. It shows not only that their policy is failing, but also that they are not actually providing housing for the people that are coming to work here.

The position in regard to the farms has been dealt with by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly there is going to be considerable expansion on our farms in the years ahead. Clearly, as I have indicated, the Coloureds are going to be drawn to the towns in ever-increasing numbers. With such a trend, it is absolutely clear that there will be a crisis unless the hon. the Deputy Minister is far more flexible than he likes to indicate from time to time. There is already the position that a good deal of prison labour is being used to supplement ordinary farm labour. This is a position which has to be watched.

This then, Sir, is the one side. We have this edict about reduction of numbers and the endorsings out. But the Government likewise has no plans about what is going to happen to these people, where they are going to be housed and where they are going to work. We heard many stories and jokes from the hon. the Deputy Minister but we heard nothing of any consequence as to where these people were going and what they were going to do. We know very well that certain of the farms in our country are already becoming overcrowded. Many farmers are prepared to accept these people back when they are sent out. They are prepared to give them a home, temporarily very often, and perhaps allow them to work a small number of days per week to keep them going. This is a situation which could become serious. We know, although he said nothing about it in this debate, that the hon. the Deputy Minister can talk a lot about border industries. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister can exaggerate enormously when it comes to border industries. He made a claim which we have already analysed to a certain extent, but it will be necessary to analyse it even more closely in due course. Among the claims he made was that there were 42,000 people who were directly taken up in border industries.

It is now 52,000.

He now pushes it up to 52,000. The official answers and reports say 42,000. Perhaps it has gone up in the meantime, but what he overlooks and fails to make clear is that a large number of that 42,000 or 52,000 consist of people who were there long before the border industries policy was thought of.

They were the only industries who applied for help from the Permanent Committee.

Even if one accepts that, the point is that it is perfectly possible for an industry which was established long before the border industries policy came into existence to apply for a border industry’s advantages. This does not mean to say that it did not have most of its workers in its employ long before the border industries concept was introduced. I have been in touch with various industrialists in the border areas and I plan to get in touch with more of them. I know from their figures that the bulk of their labour was already in those border industries long before the border industries policy was introduced. But the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite reckless. He counts those as people who have been drawn into border industries employment as a result of his policy. It is entirely misleading the country. Many of those industries of course are along the Railway line running northwards from Durban. Many of those places are ideally situated for industry. Naturally many people went into employment in those industries long before this Government was in. power. This does not, however, prevent the hon. the Deputy Minister from adding up every single one that is in those industries and saying that every single one of those would under United Party policy be in the towns. The point is that many of those Natives were taken into employment in United Party days, living exactly where they are now. He claims those people are being kept in the reserves by his policy. This is the type of situation we are up against with this Deputy Minister. He is prepared to exaggerate. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. Seven or eight years ago a leading article in a leading Nationalist newspaper stated, in words to this, effect, that if they could not reduce the number of Natives working for us, their policy would be a “holle kreet”—a hollow cry. This is what this leading newspaper, much respected in Nationalist circles and in some other circles, said eight years ago, in 1957 or 1958, in a leading article. Since that time the number of Natives in our areas has gone on increasing faster and faster. There is no sign whatsoever of it stopping. I should like to know what those people must be thinking. Does this leading newspaper now believe quite finally that their policy is a “holle kreet”? Is it going to have the courage to come out and admit that it is a “holle kreet”, or is it going to hide behind its general support of the Government? I want to know how long the consciences of these people who held these views seven or eight years ago will allow them to extend this period. I am waiting to see some signs of courage from these people and for them to say: We have done a very faithful job by the Nationalist Party. We have backed them up to the hilt and beyond it about this policy, but now it is going too far. We are waiting to see when it will be too much for these people who are among the best people on the Nationalist side. Therefore I say in conclusion that there is nothing that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said which can give those people any comfort to-day. He has no plans to indicate that there is going to be a reduction. He did not dare attempt to give us any projections which will show a reduction. No wonder we will decline to support the motion that is being moved.

Mr. Speaker, it will be an easy thing for me to participate in this debate, because I can simply react to points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Pinelands touched upon quite a number of the points which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt with in his speech, and enlarged on them. I shall therefore deal with his points together with those raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. However, I shall begin by dealing with a few points which only the hon. member for Pinelands made.

The hon. member tried to make an issue of the disquiet and anxiety which both he and the hon. the Leader have alleged exist amongst the farmers, particularly in the Western Cape, in regard to labour on the farms. However, the hon. member has contradicted himself outrageously in his exposition of the position of the farmers. At the outset he maintained that the farmers in the Western Cape had insufficient Bantu labour, that they were worried and felt perturbed because they were going to get less and less Bantu labour and would ultimately have no labour with which to continue their farming activities. A little later, however, he said that the concentration of Bantu labour on certain farms was too heavy.

That was in the Eastern Cape.

Now it is in the Eastern Cape! The trouble with the hon. member is that he does not understand these matters sufficiently well to be able to express himself clearly. Consequently he must first be challenged, as now, so that one can compel him to think clearly on these matters. The hon. member knows that he and I are good friends, and that I should not like to affront him. But there is one piece of advice I do want to give him: He must be much more careful when it comes to matters relating to Bantu administration because he knows dangerously little about it.

Less than a Week ago I granted an interview to a deputation of farmers from the Western Province here in this building, in the presence of both my Deputy Ministers and certain M.P.s who are here now, for the purpose of discussing their problems—imagined problems in many respects—in regard to agricultural labour. I gave them a chance to state their case at length. They did so by way of a memorandum as well as orally.

When was that?

I have said it was less than a week ago. It was, to be precise, in the year of Our Lord 1967, last Tuesday after the end of the caucus meeting at 11.40. I have forgotten the room number in question; it is in this building somewhere. As I have said, we discussed the matter at length, the Deputy Minister and I. It is more specifically the Deputy Minister who deals with these matters.

The difficulty is precisely that the Deputy Minister in question deals with these matters.

The difficulty with the hon. member is that he is always looking for trouble, but looks for it in the wrong places because he is continually finding himself in trouble. When the meeting began I asked the farmers to tell me what their point of departure was, what the basis of their standpoint in regard to Bantu labour on farms in White areas was. They thereupon replied that there should be no doubt that they accepted the standpoint of the Government that the amount of Bantu labour in the Western Cape should gradually be reduced. They stated this flatly. That is why I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side that there is no difference on principle between the Government and the farmers on this point. Neither have I any reason to believe, Sir, that the members of the deputation belonged to one political party only, namely my own. I have good reason to believe that some of them also belonged to the United Party. They accepted the principle that the amount of Bantu labour on the farms, as is also the case in the industries in the urban areas, must gradually be reduced. After that they discussed their problems, and to a large extent their problems were based on a misunderstanding. The misunderstanding was cleared up at the meeting and it was made very clear to them that we who administer these matters—and in particular the Deputy Minister, the departmental officials and the local authorities—are going to differentiate very clearly, not only in agriculture but also in the industries between short-term labour, labour coming in for a few weeks only for seasonal requirements, and the long-term labour which they require. There is going to be very clear differentiation between the two kinds of labour. The industries are beginning to understand this more fully now, and the Opposition must also understand this more fully. It is one of the reasons why hon. members on the opposite side make such catastrophic errors with their figures, and the same applied to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. They take the figures and point out that in this year so many thousand were allowed into the Cape whereas there were only so many thousand last year, or else they say that so many are here at present and that last year there were only so many. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there is no other region in South Africa where seasonal phenomena in respect of labour play such an important role as in the Western Cape. Apparently it is dawning on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now that this is so, because he is agreeing with it.

The figures I quoted were yours.

It does not matter whose figures they are. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not interpreting the figures correctly; neither does he understand the background to the figures. In regard to agriculture, in regard to the industries, in regard to our local harbour, which provides a great deal of employment, it is of course the case that what we have here to a large extent is a varying labour stream. For certain months there is a great demand and then the demand suddenly subsides; that is why there will always be a greatly fluctuating number of Bantu entering and leaving the area. But what does it matter if many Bantu enter, if they are only entering for a short term to come and do the work which has to be done, only to return to their own areas or proceed to another place where there is a demand for Bantu labour? What is wrong with that?

That is not the way the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education understands it.

The Deputy Minister says precisely what I have said here now, and that is the way he applies it in his daily task. It is just that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know it—and more’s the pity.

The hon. the Leader also spoke here to-day about the 5 percent reduction which we have announced. Let me tell him now that that 5 percent was not announced precipitately. It is no use his trying to heap scorn on my Deputy Minister who deals with these matters. They have been subjected to a very searching departmental examination, they have been very thoroughly dealt with at the discussions in which I participated. It was done with great care. Is the hon. the Leader aware of the implications of that 5 percent? Does he know what 5 percent means? Is 5 percent such a tremendously large demand to be made on employers? What is being required of employers is not, as the hon. the Leader wrongly stated a few weeks ago, that their labour capacity must be reduced by 5 percent, what is actually being required of them is that their Bantu labour capacity be reduced by 5 percent. What is 5 percent really? If I remind the hon. the Leader of the 5 percent now then he is once again going to try and scoff at the year 1978. What are the implications of 5 percent? The implication of 5 percent is that on a basis of an average of 5 percent per year over 20 years it will be 100 percent.

No, no!

Now they are going to say straight away that 1967 plus 20 years means that, as the hon. the Leader said, 1978 has been thrown overboard.

The Burger said that, not my hon. Leader.

It does not matter who said it, the fact remains that the hon. Leader repeated it here to-day. Mr. Speaker, we have stated very emphatically that 5 percent must be regarded as an average figure. I shall be very glad, and I think we are still going to succeed in this, to be able to apply a higher percentage than 5 percent per year as this accelerated application of policy gains momentum. That is why we say 5 percent. Perhaps we will not be able to succeed in realizing as much as 5 percent in the first year—and perhaps not even in the second either because, Sir, it is difficult to try and change gears which are moving in a certain direction into the opposite direction. Nevertheless the hon. the Leader of the Opposition —and the same also applies to anybody else— is making a very grave error if he tries to imply that the 5 percent rate of decrease will cause disruption. In a moment, when I come to other aspects of the industries and mention figures again, I shall adduce proof in support of my statement that a decrease of 5 percent need not cause any disruption because it is a 5 percent reduction in Bantu labour only and industrialists are quite at liberty to increase their Coloured labourers. In fact, it is a requirement that the Coloured labour must increase.

Does this 5 percent reduction apply to the whole country and not only to the Western Cape?

This 5 percent reduction was announced more specifically for the Western Cape, but it applies to the whole of South Africa. As far as I am concerned it can happen throughout South Africa, and the hon. member knows that we are pointing out, not only to industrialists but also to commercial and agricultural employers throughout South Africa that their Bantu labour ought to be in a certain proportion to White labour. I shall also have something to say about that now, in pursuance of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said.

The hon. member for Pinelands also referred here to the numerical ratio between White and Bantu workers in industries. He did so in passing only. A year or two ago my other colleagues, amongst others the Minister of Planning, and I began systematically to bring it home to the employers of South Africa that they should apply rationalization in regard to their White and Bantu and Coloured labourers in their service. It is absolutely essential and quite obvious that in the White areas of South Africa one wants proportionately less Bantu than Whites than one wants in the border industry areas of White South Africa and that one also wants less there than one wants in certain other parts of the country, areas which are not necessarily classified as border industry areas, areas such as Natal which was mentioned here a moment ago by the hon. member who said that the whole of Natal was practically a border industry area. It is almost correct to say that; it is a border industry area in the broad sense of the word but not in the technical meaning of the word. The average position in South Africa to-day is that in the entire industrial network of South Africa, throughout South Africa as a whole, border industries and metropolitan industries included, the average figure is approximately 22 Bantu industries and metropolitan industries included, industrial workers for every 10 White industrial workers—2.2 to 1. That is the average throughout the entire South Africa. I want to make it clear here that it is our standpoint that that ratio in the metropolitan areas, in the White areas of South Africa away from the border industry areas, must become more favourable as far as the Whites are concerned, and that is why I have stated repeatedly outside this House—and I am going to repeat it here—that, dogmatically speaking the ratio ought to be one White person to less than one Bantu in the White areas. That is the ideal position which we are striving to attain…

But are the border areas not White areas?

Yes, I mean the metropolitan White areas. The hon. member must not waste my time with nonsensical interjections. I differentiated very carefully. The average ratio throughout the whole of South Africa is 1 White person to 2.2 Bantu, and the average ratio on the Witwatersrand is 1 to 2.2. To give the Witwatersrand its due we must state that the employment of Bantu on the Witwatersrand is at present in the region of the average figure for South Africa, and that is why we say that we must make that ratio on the Witwatersrand more favourable as far as the Whites are concerned, because the Witwatersrand is undoubtedly situated in the heart of White South Africa. That is why we say that we must stive there to attain what I called the dogmatical target, namely a ratio of one White person to less than one Bantu in those industries. It is not an impossibility.

But not in East London!

I shall deal with East London in a moment.

Mr. Speaker, very close to the Witwatersrand, in a place such as Sasolburg and, even closer, in a place such as Vanderbijlpark, new extensions in the metropolitan White area away from the border industrial areas, we already have a ratio of one White person to one Bantu in the industries there. That is the situation we want, because then we do not have preponderantly Bantu industries in the area of South Africa which ought to be a preponderantly white area. That is a simple, fundamental fact which hon. members on the opposite side must realize; and if they come to me and say that what we are striving to attain is an ideological aspiration, then I say to them that they can label it an ideological aspiration as many times as they please. It is much more than an ideological aspiration; it is an essential part of our struggle for existence in South Africa and it has very emphatic economic implications. Do hon. members want to tell me that it is not in the economic interest of South Africa, of the Whites, of the Coloureds, of the Indians and of all the Bantu nations of South Africa that there should be a stable, established, flourishing, and prosperous white community here in South Africa? Zip!

I come now to the interjection of the hon. member who asked, “What about the border industries?” As far as the border industry areas are concerned—those areas near the borders of the Bantu homelands—the ratio of Bantu workers to White workers there can be unrestricted.

Then surely it is an insane policy?

We say it can be unrestricted.

Unrestricted integration!

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that that nonsensical remark has been made. I shall reply to it; the result will be that I will not get to deal with the other points at all because the hon. member is making it more and more enjoyable for me to talk about this matter. We say that the ratio can be unrestricted in the border industry areas for a very simple reason, and that is because all those Bantu can realize their aspirations in the social sphere, including the political sphere which is the most important one at the present time, in their own homelands…

We are economically dependent upon them.

… with their own rights of occupation, with proprietary rights, with title to their own land, even their own university colleges and all the amenities which they as a nascent and developing nation need have. They can realize themselves fully in their own areas, but they work in the white area.

They can get everything in their own homelands except work.

If the hon. member for Yeoville will listen to me now I will now give him something to ponder on. I say that it is much more desirable for Bantu industrial workers to work in factories situated near the borders of the homelands and return daily, across the dividing line, to their own areas, to their wives and children, their schools and relaxation facilities and all the other amenties than that they should live in Johannesburg in compounds and go to their own areas once a year only. The hon. member and his kindred spirit sitting behind him there, can go and tell this to the Chamber of Mines and the other people who operate on that basis. But I am not accusing them; it is the Good Lord who is responsible for the mines being in Johannesburg and not in a border area; that is where the mines are and that is why the Natives have to work there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the points made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Pinelands spoke about the increase in the number of the Bantu in the white areas and have raised that as a terrible charge against our side. Mr. Speaker, how do people multiply? No, let me be more specific: How are the Bantu, as people in South Africa, multiplying in the white area?

In the same way we do.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the white areas, and I am also talking about the white areas. How are their numbers multiplying here. They are multiplying, as the hon. member for Yeoville has quite rightly stated, in the same way we do, namely by births and influx. The numbers of Bantu in Johannesburg and Cape Town, and in any white urban area, multiply in two ways, namely as a result of migration, (a movement to those areas) and by birth. Let us glance at the statistics, statistics which the “hon. member must take into consideration. Against the background of these statistics hon. members must remember one other thing, namely the ridiculous reproach which is levelled at us so frequently that we are destroying the family life of the Bantu. Just listen to these figures: For the period 1946 to 1951, a period of five years which I shall call the first period, there are five births for every ten migrants which we have allowed to enter the urban areas throughout the whole of South Africa. During the next period, from 1951 to 1960, which covers nine years, there are almost 20 births for every ten migrants in those same urban areas. In other words the implications of this are as clear as daylight: The numerical increase in Bantu in the white urban areas is principally attributable to the increasing number of births and not to an increase in the influx. I want to remind the hon. member now of the other reproach which we hear so often, which is that we are undermining the family life of the Bantu. I admit that many of those births are not legal births, legal births in the sense that we, as Whites, judge births to be legal, but hon. members must bear in mind that Bantu have other norms and that those kind of births, which we call illegal, also occur in the homelands within their tribal and family systems. When hon. members on the opposite side talk about numerical increases then they must view these things relatively and not speak about them so absolutely, because I maintain that the machinery of influx control has over the past few years and up to now worked as well as it was physically possible for it to do and that the time has now almost arrived where influx control need not allow a single additional Bantu into the white areas because the birth machine is already supplying an ever-increasing number.

And the increase is continuing.

Hon. members on the opposite side are probably going to talk about birth restriction now!

I come now to the interjection made by the hon. member for Yeoville who said a moment ago that the Bantu here are present on an integrationary basis. Sir, I myself have probably dealt with this matter four or five times in this House. Other members have dealt with it; my predecessor has dealt with it and the former Prime Minister dealt with it time and again. I said last year that I was afraid I would have to repeat it another 20 times; this will now be the first of those 20 times. But I am not going to deal with it again; I am just going to remind the hon. member that we said that it must be understood very fundamentally that the Bantu who are working in the industries in South Africa, on the basis of our policy as we are applying it, are not here on an integrationary basis because they are not being integrated to become equal workers, equal entrepreneurs or equal partners in our industries. They are here in the industries on another basis than that of the Whites, and the hon. member must therefore not see the numerical increase in the industries as an integrationary process. It is the presence of Bantu and that is all it is.

But it is an essential presence.

I am not going to enlarge very much on that point, even though I am dying to do so; it will probably have to be done again during one of those 20 times which lie ahead; I shall prefer to do it then.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that our industrial development in the cities is oppressive and undermining by not allowing the necessary Bantu to enter those areas. But what is the position? I dealt with this matter very clearly in an address I made before the Federated Chamber of Industries last year. What is the position in a complex such as the Witwatersrand? I pointed out very clearly what the position on the Witwatersand as a whole was. There are approximately 2,000 morgen of land which have already been proclaimed as industrial land and which are lying vacant, plus almost 3,000 morgen of land which has been zoned in terms of town-planning for possible industrial development. I pointed out that it had been very carefully calculated, on the basis of the standards which we have in our administration, that if that industrial land is freely utilized—because there is no stopping that process—for the purpose of establishing industries, and those industries employ Bantu on the same basis as has been the case up to now then there are going to be hundreds of thousands of Bantu plus their dependants, working in that 2,000 morgen and that 3,000 morgen of other land, which will mean an increase for the Witwatersrand of more than 700,000. At the moment there are approximately 500,000. It means that more Natives will enter those areas than there are at present.

Do the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. members for Yeoville, Hillbrow and Kensington, as Johannesburgers, want the numbers of Bantu on the Witwatersrand to be more than doubled? Now they don’t say a word. Those are not all the implications either. There is not living room enough for those 700,000 Bantu on the Witwatersrand. There is almost insufficient residential land for the Bantu on the Witwatersrand at present. It is calculated that almost 14,000 morgen will also have to be purchased as residential area for those Bantu. Where are we going to get it from, and what will we have to pay for it? Is it economical? Mention is made in the amendment of an economic basis for decentralization. Is it good economics to purchase the most expensive land in the Witwatersrand area for an unrestricted expansion of residential land for the Bantu, or do they want us to use the limited land which is now available to build houses three stories high for the Bantu there? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must reflect before speaking so unthinkingly about these matters.

In regard to industrial land I want to say the following, in the limited time at my disposal, in reply to the hon. member for Pinelands. Reference was made to the vetoing of industrial sites which ought to be established here in the Peninsula. We did not brood on the matter; I rejected it and I am proud that I did so. In the Peninsula, less than two years ago, the Government allowed an additional industrial township of more than 700 acres to be established at Epping Extension No. 2. This falls under the Cape Town Municipality and is additional to the area belonging to the Divisional Council where other large pieces of industrial land are lying vacant. Is there at present a need for even more? Why are those 700 acres not enough? Why must everyone who has land which he wishes to convert into industrial land be allowed to do so when it entails a population concentration and more Bantu labour? Why should it be allowed? We say no. Up to now those matters have always been controlled on an administrative level between our Department and the Administration, but I am glad that I can hold out the prospect that it will soon be controlled by statute and not by administrative means. There will then be better control, and by that nothing more is meant than that there should be healthy development. This Government will not allow that healthy development to be retarded; neither will it allow unhealthy development.

In the few moments left to me I want to refer to the remarks on decentralization made in the amendment, where it is said that it should be on an economic basis. We all know that that alludes to border industries. I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his top economists the following question. Can they mention one example of a border industrial area or an individual industry in such an area which has up to now disturbed the economy of South Africa? There is not one such industry. [Time expired.]

We have heard some violent declarations from the Minister who, I think, was attempting to come to the rescue of his Deputy Minister who. in his inimitable fashion, with bluster and blah, tried to get out of the trouble into which he had got himself. I am convinced that what he has done has backfired and that he has been an embarrassment to the Cabinet. It was noteworthy that when he was being pilloried by the Leader of the Opposition there was not one smiling face anywhere on the Government benches except his own, while that of the hon. member for Paarl, was a picture.

We have now heard from the Minister a big sketch for South Africa from which certain points are beginning to emerge. The future development of our country in the metropolitan areas is limited only to highly developed industries, to highly technical industries tike Sasol. I want to know quite clearly from the hon. members opposite whether that is now to be the future of South Africa, that the major industrial areas on which the whole of our future is based are going to be limited only to those sorts of industry which require enormous capital, and that the number of Bantu labourers there will be reduced and limited. Our point of view is this. The Minister said’ we were “zipped” when he asked us a question, which was really too peurile to answer, but our idea is that the whole future of South Africa is based on the achievement of the White man in industry and the contribution made by the Black man. That feature is indispensable. I want to say that as far as I am concerned, in the 18 years this Government has been in power they have not yet taken one step forward in achieving what I would call industrial separation. We did not hear from the Minister that they had made progress in this matter. We hear now from the Deputy Minister that they had made progress in this matter. We hear now from the Deputy Minister that they are going to start. After 18 years they are going to start, at a tempo of 5 percent! Surely after 18 years we have the right to expect something better from the Government which was elected on the basis of apartheid. But this afternoon we had the Deputy Minister blustering. He made all sorts of jokes, but never once did he come with a clear statement of policy as to how he would achieve anything which comes near to industrial separation. I invite those hon. members to tell us how they are going to do it. We have heard all the laughs and all the snide remarks from hon. members opposite. The Minister himself gave a few hints as to how he thought it might be achieved, but that is all. Sir, this is an economic debate and I believe we have a right to have a clear statement of economic policy from the Government as to how they intend to achieve the industrial separation which is fundamental to their policy. If it is to be carried out at all, it will be carried out on that basis. But will they tell us how they intend to do it? Because I am convinced the Nationalist Party is quite prepared to sacrifice our economy on this altar of apartheid. The Minister himself said he would bend and break economic laws in order to achieve apartheid. Sir, you know as well as I do what the result is if you bend and break economic laws. Then you have recession and depression. The reason why this has not happened in our country is because the policy of the Nationalist Party has been working in reverse. What has happened is this. Over the last 25 years we have had tremendous industrial expansion. [Interjection.] The Government was not responsible for that. What has happened is that the people of South Africa have ignored the fulminations of the Government and have gone ahead with sound industrial development, knowing that the Government is incapable of carrying out its policy. Their whole policy is a dead letter and always has been and always will be.

But there is something even more serious than that, namely the effect on the mind of the Bantu people of this country. They have had 18 years of rule by this Government, telling them that there will be separation, and they know that the Government has failed to achieve it. Somehow or other we will have to learn to live with that fact because it will have a profound effect on the relations between White and Black. This Government has tried for 18 years to separate White and Black and they have failed, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that they have failed. The only thing, in fact, that one can say they have achieved in relation to a territory such as the Transkei is to hand to the Bantu population of the Transkei the initiative for their future constitutional development. They have told those people that they may be independent when they are ready for it, but they are unable to control the time table. They have given for the first time since the White conquests the initiative to the Black people for their own constitutional development, and that is all they have done in 18 years, yet they seriously suggest that they have a policy which is working. [Interjection.] Why has this been done? Why has the Government played the part they have? It is because I believe they have at last come to the sticking place; they have come to the point where they have to do something, and that phrase is taken from Macbeth, when Macbeth and his wife came to the “sticking place” where they had to dispose of the king. The Nationalist Party is now in the same position; they have to do something to justify their 18 years of government. They have been talking to the prejudice of White South Africa, but they have refused their own people the right to discuss the rational realities of what is happening and the inevitable integration between White and Black in the industrial sphere. We on our side have had all sorts of difficulties because we have tried to find the solution, but on that side there has been nothing at all; there has been no serious discussion.

Come down to tin tacks.

I say this is a gigantic confidence trick played on the people by the Nationalist Party. If that is not so, why is there this sudden burst of activity on the part of the Deputy Minister? Why does he now suddenly have to tell the people that he is going to start apartheid working? What have they been doing all the time? And what are the immediate results of this activity? There has been consternation in industry and dislocation in agriculture. There is potential unemployment among the Bantu people who are gainfully employed to—day, if this policy is carried out. The Minister was speaking about the reduction of the number of Bantu in the urban areas. He said they are temporary labourers. How can you build an industrial society on which the future of the whole country depends when practically the whole of the labour force is regarded as temporary and as not being really there; although they live there and will always be working for you, you just pass a law and say they are not really there, and then you claim that to be the final solution of your problem. The stumbling block of the Government’s policy has always been industry, the integration of White and Black working together. White capital and skill and the labour provided by the Black man. To—day at last they come with some kind of an answer which they call border industries. The example of Pinetown was raised. It is and always was an industrial area. It had started to develop and it was going ahead. I remember that the hon. the Minister of Finance at the time, the ex member for Worcester, came to Pinetown to open a factory which was the fifth or sixth opened there recently. He declared to the people of Pinetown what wonderful benefits he was going to give them because he was now declaring them a border area. Exactly the same thing happened at Pietermaritzburg. And I want to ask whether this policy of border industries is a serious attempt to solve the problem which we face of White and Black interacting, inevitably and for all time, in industry in this country.

Your Chamber of Industries thinks so.

Mr. Speaker. this policy envisages two things. One is the relocation of industries, next to existing concentrations of Bantu labour and the other the attraction back to those new industries as relocated industries of the present Bantu labour resident in our present metropolitan areas. The Government is committed to distorting the normal economic development of South Africa. It is committed now to giving to these areas where there is a heavy population of Bantu, the entire advantage of industrial expansion. And we heard to—day from the hon. the Minister of Finance of the trouble and problems we are having in raising capital. We are doing this for an ideological reason, admitted by the hon. members on the other side. We have to find the money to be able to develop in these areas, the border areas, fantastic complexes of industry. But I want to examine this question of border development even a bit more closely. My hon. friend here says I am a “skande” for Natal. I think this policy is a “skande” for Natal. [Interjections.] We have it from hon. Ministers on the other side how pleased the industrial chamber of Natal were with the policy of border areas. But of course they are. It means that every single area in Natal to—day has all the advantages which have been given by the Government to attract industry to those areas. This is money for jam. And really we ought to thank this hon. Minister.

Why did you not thank him then.

Because he is doing it for a reason which is not an economic reason. He is doing it for an ideological reason and he is trying to achieve something which he will not achieve. And in the course of it he is bending the economic development of our country in a way which can only do us harm. The idea is to create growth points. The hon. the Minister will tell us that Durban for instance, which is the major industrial area of Natal, is not a border area. [Interjections.] It is not a border area, it has not been declared a border area. It is surrounded by Kwa Mashu on the one side which is of course not a Bantu homeland and by the Umlazi mission on the other side, which is a Bantu homeland. If you go to Pinetown which is 20 miles up the road, you are in a border area, which is a natural area of industrial development. If you go to Hammarsdale which is another 15 miles up the road, you find a border area there. If you go to Pietermaritzburg, which is the capital of Natal, you will find that this is a border area.

What is wrong with that?

I want to ask that hon. member what growth in the Bantu areas is going to be engendered in those areas by the location of a place like Hammarsdale for instance… [Interjections.] I am very keen to know but I do not think that hon. member nor any other hon. member has any idea what the answer is. Because you have a hinterland at Hammarsdale which is completely sterile almost barren. The only asset that it has there is people. There is nothing else. No communications, no water supply and no water dammed up. The water that comes to the industrial area of Hammarsdale comes from the Midmar dam at Howick.

How many factories are there at Hammarsdale to-day?

Sure. There are factories at Hammarsdale. Will the hon. member tell me what sort of a growth point is being created amongst the Bantu people living at Hammarsdale which is the purpose of the border industrial development. [Interjections.] Will he please tell us that. Because I want to know. This is the solution to the problem. This is not something which they are doing for fun. This is the solution of the problem of the relationship between White and Black in South Africa whereby that hon. member is going to separate and achieve this magnificent idea of apartheid which this Government has been striving to achieve for 18 years. It is almost 19 years now. I have come to the conclusion that the whole policy on which the Government is basing this, is merely a pattern of words, a paper tiger, as the Chinese call the Americans. There is no reality in this. The great industrial concentration will continue to expand. It must continue to expand. The areas that are being developed as border areas are natural areas of industrial development, in so far as Natal is concerned. The area of Pietermaritzburg has 1,000 acres of rail served land. It has that and it has just recently been developed. But now what is happening is this. We are being told that the Bantu who live there and work there and who have always lived there and who have always worked there, are in a sense being repatriated. [Interjections.] These are people who, were it not for the hon. the Deputy Minister, would have been living in White areas. And we had a figure quoted here of 600,000 Bantu. And I remember the “hoor—hoors” from hon. members on the opposite side, when the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned it last time. What a magnificent achievement. But let us look at these figures a little more closely. The investment in border industries amounts to R300 million and employment for roughly 41,000 Bantu. That is an impressive total, namely 41,000 Bantu. The report goes on to say—

So, we have 40,000 plus twice as many persons, which gives a figure of 120,000 people, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister. To that is then added plus minus five members as dependants, which gives you your 600,000 people who are retained in the border areas and who would otherwise normally have been living in the White areas. But. let us look at the figure of 41,000. Are all those people for instance breadwinners? Are they heads of families? Of what nature are the industries established in the border areas if not largely textile? Who are the people that work in the textile mills? Are they men or are they women? Are they heads of families, are they regarded as people who have five dependants each? Do they in fact add up to 120,000 people? And then you get the statement in regard to a secondary activity such as construction. I should like someone opposite, for instance the hon. member for Heilbron, to tell me what construction is going on in the area behind Hammarsdale, for instance, which is going to absorb two for every one person working within that area.

You know very well why we could not start with housing there.

The hon. the Deputy Minister did not say he was not counting the people at Hammarsdale. We know very well why they could not go ahead. He did not say that. He claimed all those people, every one of them. He said those were the people, 600,000 of them. But he did not say out of these there were 41,000 some of whom were not heads of families or that some of them did not count, that there are no secondary activities such as construction, trading and the provision of services. This is not taking place. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the whole of this claim made by the hon. the Deputy Minister about the 600,000—in a more recent speech he said it was a million—is absolute nonsense. I believe this is something regarding which he has no claim at all. Beyond that, the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Minister have set out to try and remake the whole of South Africa in the image of apartheid. They have set out to rebuild the whole of South Africa. Everything we know has to be changed, it has to go back into a new pattern; otherwise apartheid is meaningless. But the whole policy is falling down because they are unable it carry it out [Interjections.] The hon. member says it is wishful thinking. I invite that hon. member to get up and tell us just exactly where this policy is working in the way it was intended to work—the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs are going all out to achieve new industrial development. They will look for new factories in every single country in Europe and in Japan, if they can get them. And every factory that goes up in any of our metropolitan areas employs far more Blacks than Whites. In fact, every expansion that takes place is bound hand and foot to the employment of more and more Bantu labourers. The hon. members can never escape from that fact.

You said exactly the same thing about Sasol, that it is impossible.

The hon. the Minister was the only one who came anywhere near saying what the Nationalist Party intends to do. because he says that in certain industries, such as Sasolburg and others, they would be allowed. I hope when I sit down and the next member of the Nationalist Party gets up, we will hear a close detailed and reasoned statement of how they are going to achieve separation between White and Black in the industrial field, because that is the whole purpose of this motion which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has moved, which I support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooirivier confined himself to border industries and he said that the Bantu working in those industries had always been there and that no resettlement of Bantu had been entailed. I now want to furnish him with a few figures I have obtained from the Department after I had made careful inquiries into the matter, figures which may perhaps speak volumes to him if he only cares to examine them closely. I said to the Department: Let me have the number of inhabitants resettled in Bantu townships to date. That is to say, not in Bantu locations, but in Bantu townships—townships situated in the Bantu homelands and Bantu resettled in those townships from White areas. According to the figure I obtained from the Department 193,985 persons were resettled up to that date (24th August. 1966). My second question was: Let me have the number of persons employed in border industries. The figure furnished to me on 24th August, 1966, was 53.500 persons, of whom 4,000 occupied high—ranking posts.

Where do they get those figures?

I have just said that I asked the Department specifically to try to get those figures for me. Surely you know that those townships fall under the control of the Department. After all, we know how many workers there are in those townships. The Department does have those figures at its disposal. I mention them for the information of the hon. member. I also asked the Department: Let me have the number of persons who are settled in townships on the borders of the Bantu areas and who work in White areas in industries which are not considered border industries by the Department of Commerce and Industries. That hon. member will know that there are many urban areas which adjoin Bantu areas and which are not classified as border industry areas by the Department of Commerce and Industries because, those areas will then get the benefits applicable to border industries. Durban, amongst others, is one of them. The same holds good for a number of other places, and the figures I got was 83,595 workers. All these are people who have been resettled from the White areas and who are living in the Bantu areas now, but who are working in the border industries—that is, industries in the White areas. Is that not a measure of separation brought about as a result of that? Does not that figure serve as proof that the policy is being carried out? But what is more, the hon. the Deputy Minister furnished the hon. member with the figure on a previous occasion and one can accept that those workers are the heads of families. Usually they are heads of families—and we can accept that they are the heads of average—sized families. For those who are not heads of families there are other families consisting of more than five members, so that one can accept this figure of five as the average for each family. If one takes that figure as the average and multiplies it by the number of workers, one will see how many Bantu are already being resettled in this way through the implementation of our policy of Border industries.

But I want to deal with another point as well. I do not think it is necessary for me to give so much attention to that hon. member. I want to come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who started off his speech by referring to the Tomlinson Report. He said that there were such large numbers of Bantu in the towns and in the White areas because we had rejected the Tomlinson Report. He said that the position might perhaps have been different if we had carried out the recommendations of the Tomlinson Report. I now want to quote him a few figures from that Tomlinson Report. The Tomlinson Report recommended that an amount of £10½ million be spent on development in the Bantu areas annually. He agrees with me that that was the figure they had given, that is R21 million per year. Over a period of ten years it would have amounted to R210 million. Over a period of five years it would have amounted to R105 million. Now what is the real position after five years? Over the last five years, up to 1966, we spent…

What about the first five years?

I shall give you the figure for the last five years. Surely that will be enough for you? After all, we did not discuss the Tomlinson Report ten years ago. We discussed it in this House only six years ago. But let me now give you the figures for the last five years. Up to 1966 we spent R135 million. That amounts to R27 million per year, which means R6 million per year more than the amount recommended by the Tomlinson Report.

Mr. Speaker, that is only in respect of development. I want to give the hon. Leader of the Opposition the figures in respect of land purchases as well. The figure for land purchases exceeded the figure recommended by the Tomlinson Report by far. The hon. member need only to look at the estimates of the last five or six years. I want to make a statement here this afternoon, and I shall try to prove that statement. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated here this afternoon that it would be impossible for us to have economic development in South Africa unless we also had a large measure of integration, in other words, unless we employed a large quantity of Bantu labour. I want to say that that statement is quite untrue if we view it in the light of the history of South Africa.

The first statement I want to make is that industrial development in South Africa is not being paralysed and impeded by the restricting of Bantu labour. His statement was that intensification of labour in the country would ensure industrial progress. I am now going to quote figures to show that that is not the case. I want to refer to our large cities, namely Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Germiston and Benoni. Those are the cities where the greatest industrial development took place during the last three decades in South Africa, and I do not think the hon. member can deny that. I now want to quote the figures for those cities only. In 1921 there were 242,000 Bantu males in the cities which I have mentioned, which cities constitute the metropolitan areas where most of our industrial development has taken place. Factory production in those cities amounted to R53 million at that time. In 1936, that is to say, 15 years later, there were 398,000 Bantu males in those cities—I do not say they were employed there—and factory production then amounted to R105 million. Factory production, therefore, increased by 99 percent during that period, while the number of Bantu males in the cities increased by only 64 percent. Let me now take the next period, namely the period from 1936 to 1951. During that period the number of Bantu males increased to 658,000, while industrial production increased to R555 million. The production therefore increased by 425 percent, while the number of Bantu males increased by 66 percent. The increase in the number of Bantu and the increase in industrial expansion are absolutely out of proportion. The next period I want to deal with, is the period from 1951 to 1960, during which time the number of Bantu males increased to 821,500, which represents an increase of 25 percent, while the industrial production increased to R1,125 million, an increase of 102 percent.

The statement I now make is that our industrial development in these metropolitan areas has not taken place as a result of labour intensification, but as a result of the capital intensification which took place in those cities. Capital intensification is the reason for the development of our industries. I say—and I say it with emphasis—that increasing prosperity does not require increasing integration as hon. members opposite want to suggest.

I now want to make a second statement. The Opposition suggests that the Bantu are being urbanized because of the employment of Bantu in the cities, in other words, that there is a direct correlation between the number of Bantu in the cities and the number of Bantu labourers in the cities. I have given the number of Bantu males, the male population, in those cities. In 1921 only 61,000 out of the 242,000 Bantu males in those cities were employed in the manufacturing industry. In 1936 there were 398,000 males, that is to say an increase of 64 percent, while employment in the factories increased by 90 percent. In 1951 the male population increased by 60 percent, while industry expanded by 215 percent. And now I want to quote an important figure, namely the figure relating to the period from 1951 until 1960. Over that period industrial employment decreased by 4.4 percent, and that was the very period when the great industrial upsurge took place in South Africa, an upsurge which is continuing to this day. I repeat, Sir: Since this Government came into office the number of Bantu males in industry has decreased by 4.4 percent, while the number increased by 215 percent prior to our coming into power.

I want to stress once again that increasing prosperity does not mean increasing integration or increasing employment of Bantu as is alleged by that side of this House.

I now want to deal with another statement, and here we must view the factor of urbanization in its entirety, namely the correlation between the number of female Bantu in the cities and the increase of the number of Bantu in the cities. We would do well to have a look at that. In quoting his figures the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made no allowance for the part played in this respect by the natural increase in population. I now want to quote figures in respect of two cities, Pretoria and Port Elizabeth. In 1951 the number of Bantu females in Pretoria increased by 43 percent, while in 1960 there was an increase of 63.3 percent. In Port Elizabeth the increase was 49 percent in 1951, while it was 75.8 percent in 1960. Sir, it therefore means that the number of Bantu females in our cities increased by 242 percent from 1921 to 1936. From 1936 to 1951 it increased by 171 percent. From 1951 to 1960 they increased by 63 percent. I have to draw attention once again to the decrease in these numbers since we came into power in 1948. From 1951 to 1960 there was only a slight increase of 63 percent, but in the preceding periods the figures were 242 percent and 171 percent.

What part does the Bantu female population play in the cities now? The hon. the Minister has already furnished the relevant figures, namely that while there is an increase of one through immigration, the natural increase is 20.That is the increase in the number of females in the cities. The United Party never wants to look at these figures. But this is the party which is always, night and day and at every meeting they have, talking about this evil Government that wants to destroy the family life of the Bantu. They want to see the tendency of the influx of female Bantu to the cities increase. The increase of the number of Bantu in the cities will then be much higher still.

I also want to mention that the natural increase in the number of Bantu males in the cities was only 3.6 percent from 1946 to 1951, but as far as Bantu females were concerned, the figure was 6.5 percent. The corresponding figures for the period 1951 to 1960 were 3.5 percent and 5.1 percent, respectively. Over the past ten years the number of Bantu females in the cities increased by 121,600, while the number of Bantu males increased by 83,000. Natural increase is the most important factor as far as the increase in the number of Bantu in the White areas is concerned.

I now want to make a further statement, namely that the pegging of Bantu labour bears no relation to our industrial development, and I should like to quote a few figures in that regard. In 1951 industrial production amounted to R615 million, and there were 345,000 Bantu labourers, which constituted 54 percent of the labour market. In 1960 industrial production amounted to R 1,051 million and there were 357,000 Bantu labourers, which represented a total increase of 11,500 labourers in manufacturing industry over that period under our régime. These are the only statistics available in this connection. The increase in the number of Bantu over this period is negligible compared with the increase over the periods preceding it. Over a period of 12 years there was an increase of 10 percent in the number of Bantu workers, not only in manufacturing industry, but generally, while there was a 100 percent increase in the output of the manufacturing industry. Therefore I say that the two figures cannot be correlated; the increase in the number of Bantu in the cities bears no relation to the industrial development in South Africa, and the sooner the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party realize this, the sooner they will realize what is being done to carry out our policy here in South Africa.

I want to mention one more point, because it was also mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if not in this House this afternoon, then on some other occasion. He said that we were allowing the White rural areas to become Black. We heard another complaint from him this afternoon. We heard the complaint that the faremrs had no labour. I asked him by way of interjection: “You say the farmers are complaining that they have no labour; is that the case throughout South Africa?” His reply was: “Yes, that is so; now we know where inflation comes from, because the wages of all labourers have to be increased now.” But is he not the one who always says that the White rural areas are gradually becoming blacker and that there are too many Black people in the rural areas? Mr. Speaker, I again want to quote him figures in connection with the number of workers in the White rural areas so that we may see what the true state of affairs is. The number of Whites in the rural areas has decreased to 13 percent of the total population. Earlier the Whites in the rural areas represented 27 percent of the total population. That percentage has decreased to 13 percent, but over that same period the production of the rural areas has increased threefold. This presents a different picture. But let us see how many Bantu are employed in the rural areas: In 1936, 463,000 Bantu were employed in the rural areas; in 1951 there were 572,000, an increase of slightly more than 100,000 over the whole of that period. Whereas the number of Bantu was 572,000 in 1951, it decreased to 557,000 in 1960, but increased to 646,000 in 1962. Because I am concerned with farm labour and because I have close contact with it, I want to make the statement here this afternoon that there is no such thing as a shortage of farm labour in South Africa. There is sufficient farm labour available in South Africa, but Bantu labour is being incorrectly utilized on a very large scale in South Africa, and I think the Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Unions are fully aware of that, and are therefore cooperating with this Department to remedy that state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker, from speeches made by leaders on the Government side it is clear to all of us that the Government does have certain forceful intentions. Nobody would dispute the fact that it has good intentions, from its own point of view, but I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers on this side have demonstrated quite as effectively that the results are showing a constant tendency to be contrary to the intentions. So far in this debate we have dealt mainly with the position of the Bantu in what we call the White areas. No one on this side is satisfied with the account that has been rendered of that. But I think it is time we went further and also called for an account in the wider sphere of the Government’s Bantu policy, particularly as regards the progress made in the development of the Bantu reserves. When we ask the Government to render account of its policy in this House, the counter—question always comes back at us: Where do you stand; what are you planning; what is your policy? Mr. Speaker, as far as the Bantu areas are concerned the question has been answered repeatedly in this House. [Interjections.] As recently as the previous session. Let me quote what I said only last year during the last debate in this House. I am referring specifically to the development of the Bantu areas.

Have you reached the stage where you are quoting yourself?

No, I am not quoting myself at all. If the hon. the Prime Minister had listened carefully, he would have heard that I said that we had set out our attitude repeatedly, and last session I quoted the attitude of the Party, as it was declared officially, in this House. To refresh the memory of the hon. the Prime Minister, I want to do so again before I come to the point where I shall call the Government to account on its attitude. When the report of the Tomlinson Commission was published early in 1956, the United Party set out its attitude as follows—

At that time the Opposition adopted the attitude that it associated itself with the broad policy set out in the report of the Tomlinson Commission. There can be no doubt about that. What is more, in 1961 the United Party declared its policy as regards the Bantu areas in even clearer terms—

Note well, Mr. Speaker, that the statement of policy is absolutely clear. It rests on three principles: Number one, the energetic development, economically and constitutionally, the Bantu areas; secondly, in order to achieve that, the application of free capital and White skill, and thirdly, the protection of the interests of the Bantu in the Bantu areas. There can therefore be no doubt about the attitude of this side in that regard. If the question is asked: “What ultimate aim is being pursued?”, there can be no doubt about that either. The United Party has stated repeatedly that it has a federative approach with regard to the ultimate position of the Bantu areas. The Government members advocate a commonwealth, but the commonwealth proposed by them is vague; it is incomplete, and the details of the ultimate relationship between the Bantu areas and the rest have never been stated clearly to the country by the Government. We advocate a federative unit on the clear principle of co-operation between ourselves and the Bantu areas, as they develop, without domination of one by the other. I am just mentioning this because I do not consider this an occasion for a discussion of an academic nature. We have not come anywhere near the stage where a decision has to be taken on the independence of a territory and on its relationship with the centre in South Africa. For that reason it is not on this point that I want to conduct a debate. We are interested in the immediate aims. Let us deal with those.

This is the position. The Government has now been in power almost 19 years. For the first seven years Bantu policy on that side was virtually static, because it then had the excuse that there was a Tomlinson Commission and that we would have to wait until it had published its report. Thus seven years passed, and in March, 1956, the Commission’s report was available. But now a further 11 years have passed since the report was published, and for four of those 11 years the Transkei has had self—government in the present form. What is the result of all that? After 11 years the Commissioner—General of the Transkei, Mr. Hans Abraham, had to come and demand a commission of inquiry to investigate what had become of the recommendations of the Commission and to what extent they had been implemented. This is what Mr. Abraham asked (translation)—

Just imagine it, Sir. What Mr. Abraham tried to say here in a very subtle fashion was that there was something wrong. This is an accusation that there is something wrong, that the time has come for a commission to find out what is wrong that the development of the Bantu areas is not more rapid. He is not the only one. I do not want to read a lengthy series of quotations, but there is another who had been a Bantu Commissioner, Professor Johannes Bruwer, who levelled the same kind of criticism against the Government. At present there is hardly a political commentator in South Africa on that side of politics who does not complain that the development of the Bantu areas is not sufficiently rapid. All of them say that the rate at which the Bantu areas are developing is such that there is no hope of the Government’s succeeding in its policy. In 11 years there has been only one territory, and that the easiest of all, because the Transkei is the only unified area. In 11 years only one area was handled in such a way that it shows signs of becoming a state. [Interjection.] For the rest there are very few signs of progress. As far as all those areas are concerned, they may in the main be called economic slums. Their development is so inadequate that the inhabitants are forced to seek a living outside the Bantu areas. That is the crux of the problem. I think it is time we called the Government to account and achieved clarity, firstly, on the political progress of the Transkei after four years. From time to time we read reports on leaders in the Transkei who state that they will ask the Government to hand over greater powers. We should like to ask the Government whether that is the case, and when it will happen. Four years have passed. Now let us hear what further progress is being planned. Everywhere overseas the Transkei is represented as the model item of the Government’s policy, as the spearhead of the formation of a commonwealth of free nations in South Africa. When shall we reach the stage where the Government will be able to show the world the practical fruits of its policy and to say: Here the commonwealth is now taking shape? Can the Government tell us when it expects to reach that stage? We hear continually that the Government party is a radical party with radical solutions, but really, if one sees how little progress is being made with its policy, it does seem to me that the emphasis falls on the threadbareness rather than on the radical nature of its policy (“die kaalheid van sy radikaalheid”).

But in the second place we should like to have a report on the progress made with the emancipation of the other Bantu areas. We know more or less how far the Transkei has got, but what is the position of the others? How far have we got with the other seven or eight? Surely, after 19 years in power the Government should now be able to give the country somewhat more clarity on its policy. Can they now tell us exactly how many other states, similar to the Transkei, there will be? Can they tell us that after 19 years? Can they tell us how much progress they expect to make in the immediate future? Some years ago the previous Minister of Bantu Administration, Mr. De Wet Nel, had an interview with a man who is now the hon. member for Turf—fontein. In the course of that interview Mr. De Wet Nel made it quite clear—that was in 1964—that it would be only a year or two before Tswanaland would become the next country to advance to political maturity and to become the second self—governing Bantu state. We have heard rumours of Zululand being on the point of following the model of the Transkei, and also the Ciskei. It is now three years since reports appeared in newspapers about the Ciskei’s request that it wanted to make the progress that had been made by the Transkei. We hear nothing. There is a policy on paper, but where are the practical results? If one inquires about that, one hears nothing, and one gets the impression that the Government is engaged in a puppet—show. The results will not come. Furthermore, I think it is time they rendered account to us on the question of consolidation. Eleven years ago the Tomlinson Commission made certain recommendations and the Government accepted those recommendations and said that in principle it was in favour of consolidation. I would not pretend that there has not been some consolidation here and there, but it is certainly not enough for the purpose of the Government’s policy. In terms of the 1936 Act a further 1.6 million morgen of land has to be purchased for the Bantu. We want to know what progress is being made in that regard. Time is running out. Let the Government come and tell us: “This year we have tackled this, and there has been this or that progress.”

You have not done your homework.

No, I do my homework to my own satisfaction. But I want to come to the crucial question, the major question to which we should like a reply, and that is the question of the economic development of those areas, the question of White initiative for development inside the Bantu areas. By this time I think it should be clear to everybody that this side of the House adopted the correct course and the correct attitude from the outset, that if there is to be any question at all of the development of the Bantu areas, that development must take place inside those areas. There is simply no other way. There can be no real development unless free capital is admitted. That is impossible. In fact, the crucial concept on which the appointment of the Tomlinson Commission hinged, the crux of the entire inquiry, was the question of what schemes could be devised to keep the maximum number of Natives inside the Bantu areas. That was the true objective of the Tomlinson Commission. The Government has failed objectively in that purpose. The Government has not succeeded in keeping the maximum there, and why not? There is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. Towards the end of last year he said: “The development and planning of the Transkei is aimed at enabling the area to support the entire Xhosa people.”

Did I say that the Transkei had to support the entire Xhosa people?

Yes, that is the way it was reported in Die Transvaler of 3rd November, 1966.

What about the Ciskei?

I shall give the hon. the Minister the quotation. I shall give it to him this very afternoon. The report is in my office. [Interjections.] What will the hon. the Minister do if I give it to him this very afternoon, before the end of the debate? On one point the hon. the Minister will not catch me, because I have been in this House too long. I do not make incorrect quotations. I shall read it to him as recorded and I shall give him the Transvaler.

Remember you said the Transkei.

Yes, I quote: “The development and planning of the Transkei is aimed at enabling the area to support the entire Xhosa people.” The reason why I quoted this statement, which was published in Die Transvaler on 3rd November last year, is purely to point out what the intention is, and to measure the results by that. The objective of the Commission was to see how the maximum number of Natives could be kept in the Bantu areas. The majority of the Commission, and that included the previous Minister recommended that if one wanted to attain that object, it was essential that one should allow free White capital to assist in its development. In fact, no political commentator in the country nowadays adopts any other attitude. From no one, not even in this House, have I heard a sound reason why White capital should not be allowed to assist in that development. What is more, there is not one Bantu leader who is not in favour of that. Even three years ago the Chief Minister of the Transkei said that if the Government did not allow White capital, it would be vain to think that Native capital could develop the Transkei properly. Recently a new body was established which claims that it represents 7,000 prominent Bantu, and which demands that free capital should be admitted. The Bantu themselves want it, but the Government closes the door to it. Prosperity will have to be distributed more evenly…

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Must the free capital to which the hon. member has referred be admitted to the Bantu areas for investment with a view to development regardless of any control or regardless of any share the Bantu will have in it?

I shall reply to that question later. I am coming to that. Mr. Speaker, we believe that prosperity must be distributed more evenly in South Africa if we want peace and quiet in this country. Every time we speak of White capital to assist in the development, the Government raises the question of border industries. There is no objection to the decentralization of industries. It is a sound and healthy principle and no one has any objection to it. But I want to bring the charge that in a certain sense border industries militate against the development of Bantu areas. How will the Bantu be trained in the economic sphere if he always has to work on this side of the border, where he is subject to legal restrictions and where his work prospects are limited? How will he develop if he always has to work on this side of the border? How can there be any development if all the economic advantages and development are always on the White side? How on earth can one hope to develop the Bantu areas in that way? How can they develop if the Xhosa in the Transkei, for example, must always remain a labourer on this side of the border? If anything can be called economic colonialism, it is this system of border industries, in view of their underlying aims. No one can point a finger at economic decentralization as such, but this is economic colonialism. It is time hon. members on that side told us the real reason why the Bantu areas cannot be allowed to develop by means of free White capital. [Interjections.]

On the Tomlinson Commission there were only two officials who tried to give an explanation, namely Mr. Young and Mr. Prinsloo. They offered the excuse that “White spots” would arise if free White capital were admitted. But can anyone envisage a position where there will be no “White spots” in a territory like the Transkei? Surely, as soon as the Transkei becomes independent, it is going to follow the same course as Lesotho and Botswana. It can be accepted here and now that as soon as the Transkei becomes independent, it will become “non—racial”: a non-apartheid state just like Lesotho and Botswana. Why the pretended concern about “White spots”? The more territorial separation there is, the more the apartheid area will shrink. The Government will not be able to stop that. We saw what happened as regards education. The Minister wanted to guide Bantu education in the Transkei in a certain direction. The moment the Xhosa attained control over education, they guided it in a different direction. To worry and to have an obsession about “White spots” in the Transkei is a waste of time.

As regards the fear that the Whites will then make certain demands there, surely it goes without saying that if a White industrialist invests money there he must invest it in the knowledge that he is doing so on the terms of the Transkei. But the important consideration is the fact that the entire existing policy became obsolete when Lesotho and Botswana were liberated. At present South Africans are at liberty to go to Lesotho and to invest and help there. In fact, South Africans are now taking the lead in the economic field in territories like Lesotho. Surely the old story that that is economic colonialism and exploitation is nonsensical. Surely that argument is not valid, particularly not if the authorities of Lesotho and the Transkei ask for assistance. Surely there can then be no question of economic colonialism. In any event, are we to assume that if Frenchmen invested in South Africa, if they helped South Africa to develop, it would mean economic colonialism? No more would it mean economic colonialism if we helped to develop the Transkei. It is a poor argument to say that it will mean exploitation. I admit that new states are sensitive, and that is why we adopted the attitude from the outset that certain protective measures should be taken in the interests of the Bantu. I mentioned that as our third principle. But that is precisely what the Tomlinson Commission also recommended, namely that because it was a young state, protective economic measures should be taken. That can be done in various ways, there are many ways in which protection can be afforded…

Then surely it is not free capital.

Of course, the investment is made according to ordinary economic rules. One makes a voluntary decision. One may freely accept the terms offered. There is no interference on the part of the Government. That is free capital, Sir. If a French or British undertaking decided to invest here, it would have to adapt itself to the South African laws, but it is free to enter.

Yes, but you say there should be protection because it is a young country.

Yes, of course, but there are ways and means of doing that. The man who devised the most successful recipe is Dr. Anton Rupert, with his industrial partnership. There is the case of a South African wholesale undertaking, Moshal Gevisser, which is now going to establish an organization in Lesotho with 50 percent of the shares in their hands and 50 percent in Lesotho’s. Why cannot that system be adopted in respect of our own Bantu areas? Not so long ago the Financial Mail gave some very interesting examples of what could be done to achieve the object of rapid development whilst simultaneously affording protection to local people, for example the stipulation that companies must be registered there instead of being subsidiaries of companies in the Republic. The crucial consideration is that without White economic co—operation of some kind or other, those areas will never develop to the point… [Interjections.] Up to this stage the entire policy has been nothing but a puppet—show. There are all indications that the entire concept of separate freedoms, which they advocate so clamorously, will never get any further. Only recently one of the Government newspapers said the following (translation)—

That is our complaint, Sir. A policy is advocated here, but if one calls for account one finds that the results, not only in respect of the matters mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but also in respect of the crucial question of the development of the Bantu areas, are in contrast to the forceful intentions of the Government. For that reason we are fully justified in supporting the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, in which we censure the lack of results on the part of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, during the latest election I once attended a meeting held by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He made the statement there that he had undertaken a journey to the country and found that the United Party was growing stronger, stronger than ever before, and that it was growing from day to day. Now, I do not want to accuse the hon. the Leader of not being a political expert. Nor do I want to accuse him of having intended to mislead the people. I think I just misunderstood him. I think that what he actually meant that evening, was that the United Party was growing like the tail of a cow—downwards. If it continues growing that way, it will soon be like a lean cow in winter. It will be down on the ground. That is why I find it very interesting that we have recently had the strange phenomenon of two hon. members—not the Leader of the Opposition, but two other members—announcing the policy of the Opposition from time to time. I am referring to the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member who has just sat down. It is very clear to me now why the United Party is going backwards. Before I deal with what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said to-day, I should just like to refer to a few things he and, shortly after him, the hon. member for Orange Grove said in the no confidence debate last year. In that no confidence debate these two hon. members spoke consecutively. I just want to read out to you what the hon. member for Orange Grove said of the Government. He accused the Government of having no basic policy and of not knowing what they were standing for. He said (Hansard, Volume 17, col. 59)—

He said further that we did not even have true nationalism any more. He went on (Hansard. Vol. 17, col. 60)—

So he went on. Then he kept on telling us that the National Party had no policy. Strangely enough, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rose immediately after him. This is what he said at the time: “As I have already stated, we are already a country with a State dogma.” One moment we have no policy and the next we are governed by a State dogma. He said further (Hansard, Vol. 17, col. 73)—

No policy, but in the meantime a system has become our master. In his speech he proceeds to prove that South Africa has become an “-ism” country now. If a party permits such men to make their statements of policy, it is dangerous. Then it is very easy to understand why the United Party is growing downwards. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout once again stated the policy of the United Party to-day. He told us that he wanted to tell us what their policy was. Unfortunately he did not tell us that it was the umpteenth policy being stated for the umpteenth time. To-day he made certain statements of policy here, very clear statements of policy. However, he did not refer to certain statements of policy made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville. He did not tell us whether they still stood by those statements of policy, or whether they had deviated altogether from those statements of policy. I can understand why the hon. member for Orange Grove, when he made a speech in the no confidence debate this year, did not once ask for television. I think he pictured to himself how dangerous it would be, because if the hon. member for Yeoville appears on television and starts making statements of policy, it will be extremely dangerous for the United Party. The hon. member who just sat down, made certain statements in the course of his speech to-day. The hon. member is not here at present, but I hope he returns because I want to respond to certain things he said. He told us that Mr. Abraham had supposedly admitted— I think he referred to his address to the Rapportryers of Port Elizabeth—that our policy had been a failure up to now. If the hon. member had read that report, he would have seen that Mr. Abraham had said the opposite. He said that we had been so successful in our policy and that we had to such an extent created the basic possibilities for the development of the Bantu homelands, that we now had to accentuate another aspect of the development, namely the development of the individual himself. Surely, the potential for the individual is created first. If the individual does not utilize that, we must develop that individual. Why distort a person’s very logical and very practical statement and give such a slanted version of what the man has said? I believe that if anybody knows what is being done in the Transkei, then it is Mr. Abraham, because he lives there and he is very closely connected with the work being done there. It is also for this reason that he said he thought that this phase had advanced so far that another aspect could be emphasized now. We need not concern ourselves any further about pouring money into it at such a fast rate, because the potential and the possibilities, are there. According to him we should now pay attention to the human factor so as to help the Bantu to help himself, to develop his own possibilities as far as possible.

The hon. member made the strange statement here that we had already had 18 years in which to do certain things and to prove the practicability of our policy. Does the hon. member know in what condition we took over the country 18 years ago, or has he forgotten that? Does he know what the policy was? Does he know what the course was? Does he remember the conditions which existed in this country? Owing to their policy our entire country was heading for total racial integration. Those conditions had to be broken down first. It took us years to put a stop to those conditions and to check them. The hon. member really made a ridiculous statement. When we took over, Whites and Bantu alike lived in the same residential areas. We started clearing the Bantu slums, and that was a tremendous task. Do hon. members on the other side still remember Cato Manor and the other Bantu locations? Does that hon. member still remember the tremendous task we had in clearing their slums and providing those Bantu with proper houses in which they could lead a decent life? Surely, it was not possible to start developing the individual, to start with a positive policy, under the conditions in which the previous government had left this country. I see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition shaking his head. But, surely, he is no stranger in Jerusalem. After all, the hon. the Leader did drive past Windermere at times. Surely he remembers the shanty-town which everybody was ashamed to admit was part of South Africa. We remember the conditions we had to clear before we could start with something positive, something constructive.

We had to provide proper housing on a segregated basis. It cost the State millions of pounds at that time. We had to undertake an armament programme. I still recall the terrible condition in which our army was. We had to build up an army in this country so as to enable us to defend ourselves.

You do not know what you are talking about now.

The hon. member says I do not know what I am talking about. If there is anybody who ought to know that I am speaking the truth now, that hon. member is the very person.

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

I am sorry, but I should like to finish my speech in the time I have at my disposal. We had a task, and after we had checked the worst conditions, this Government started with investigations. Previously it was not within our power to appoint government commissions to determine policy and to spend money. The Tomlinson Commission was appointed as soon and as timeously as possible. After all, it takes time to plan. What did the Opposition do in this direction during all the years they had been in power? Nothing. They destroyed, they let things slide, they allowed matters to take their own course. That was their policy, and at times things also went slightly awry. At times things went seriously wrong, and hon. members on the other side know this, surely. Why do they reproach us now by asking us what we have accomplished over the past 18 years? Let me tell hon. members that it took us almost nine years to stem the tide of destruction, before we could start on constructive planning. After that we came with planning, which also took time. Subsequent to that we had to struggle to become a republic, to put race relations in our country in order and on a sound basis. All of these were tasks we had to dispose of first, and only then could we start building, only then could we start with constructive development. As is often the case, it also took us a few years before we were in step in this respect.

That is why I say, Sir, that this Government has reason to feel very proud. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Ministers and their Departments on the miracles they have performed. I think that if we take everything into account, the Opposition ought to blush to the roots of their hair for daring to criticize this Minister and his Deputy Minister, while they know in what a chaotic condition they left this country and how, as regards its race relations, they had steered this country to the brink of ruin.

The hon. member also said that economic development only occurred on the White side of the reserves. He intimated that that was robbery. He also referred to our border industries. The hon. member has probably never heard of the Bantu Development Corporation. That is merely an initial stage. We are pouring money into the reserves on a large scale. We have made those people viable. We are helping them to make a beginning. One cannot make something from nothing, cannot create out of thin air. It is not in our power to do such a thing. We must build, we must build on the ruins in which the Opposition left this country. Out of that chaos and fiasco we must build a future now.

This side of the House has a policy, Mr. Speaker. But the problem is that different policies are not what is being debated in this House. No, here a policy is stated on one side as against a lack of policy on the other side. It is never possible to have a proper debate here in which a specific policy of this side and its implementation is compared with a specific policy and its implementation as propagated by the other side, because, Sir, one never knows what the Opposition’s policy is.

They are characterized by their lack of policy. That is why I do not blame the hon. member for Bezuidenhout if he becomes nervous and regularly makes statements of policy. I think that, if my Leader had also been so lax in propagating his policy, I should also have issued statements of policy occasionally.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that an Opposition also has a task to perform. An Opposition has a very positive task in a democratic parliament. I should like to refer the Opposition to the previous Opposition. That Opposition stated their policy as against the lack of policy, or shall I call it the reckless policy of the Government at that time. The leader of the then Opposition and his handful of colleagues stated a positive policy. They said that their policy was one of apartheid or separate development. After all these years we are still very definitely building on the foundations we laid at that time. But on the United Party side one has hundreds of statements of policy. If one asks them what they said last year, they are ashamed of it. Why is the hon. the Leader so hesitant in making a statement of policy here? The hon. the Leader was not as hesitant when he granted an interview with a magazine of the English schools. He was, as it were, quite willing to make a statement of policy then. When certain questions were put to him, he simply replied to them without any hesitation. He probably did not expect the hon. member for Innesdal to be so nasty as to read out the article in question in this House. He never intended that to happen. In May, 1962, the hon. the Leader spoke at De Aar—a town he, too, probably regarded as a small place— and then he was also prepared to make a statement of policy. That is why we have to go back to those days because nowadays statements of policy are no longer made from the bench of the hon. the Leader, but from the benches of people sitting slightly across from him. We asked the hon. the Leader whether he still stood by what he had said at that time, so that we might set off policy against policy and not policy against lack of policy. Then we can talk as people who know what is at stake. Does the Leader still stand by the following words he used at that time, namely, “It will contribute to the immediate release from racial tension by providing participation by all races in the machinery of government at administrative as well as legislative level. It will not be mere representation without opportunity to participate in the executive and administrative functions.” Does the Leader still stand by that, namely that the Bantu and the Coloureds should not only be able to sit in this Parliament, but also in the highest executive authority of this country?

That is not what I said.

What does it mean other than that? If my words have any meaning, then I do not know what other meaning these words may have. What does “legislative level” mean, if not this House? What does “administrative level” mean, if not the Cabinet?

No.

In a political context words are likely to have only one meaning, surely.

You can tell those stories in Namaqualand but not here.

Then I shall tell the hon. the Leader what he told Beacon. First he asked, “Does United Party policy want a white Parliament, or a multi-racial one?” Unfortunately the report I have before me, is a little faded. The hon. the Leader would probably prefer it to be quite invisible, but I am going to re-write it so that it may be distinct. At any rate, his reply was, “The United Party policy includes the right of Coloureds to sit in Parliament, if elected.” Does the hon. the Leader still say so? The hon. the Leader said this very clearly to Beacon. Must I repeat it? I am sorry if I speak too softly, but I shall speak a little louder this time. [Interjections.] Thank you. The hon. the Leader says that he still stands by that.

Where do they mention the “Natives” to whom you referred?

I shall deal with that. If I were the hon. member I should go swimming. I should not ask questions of this sort. The hon. member tempts me to read more and more. By doing so the hon. member is not endearing himself to his Leader. The hon. the Leader was then asked a further question, namely, “Could a Coloured become Prime Minister under United Party policy?” “It is highly unlikely but not impossible,” was his reply to that. It appears therefore, Sir, that these things are possible under United Party policy. If we consider these aspects of their policy and observe the world as it is at present, we know that if the United Party’s policy is implemented, this would no longer be “unlikely”, but rather “very likely”.

As against this lack of policy on the part of the Opposition, the Government came forward with a positive policy, a policy we are not afraid to state before the whole world. In the words of the Minister of Bantu Administration not so long ago: We accept certain facts in regard to our fatherland. The first fact we accept is that we are more than one people living in a common fatherland. We have various Bantu people within this homeland, within this country of ours, within the territorial frontiers of our fatherland. This is one of the facts which we accept and which we do not try to argue away, as the United Party is doing.

The United Party must tell us now whether they accept or reject these facts. If they accept them, they must tell us what they are going to do, because we are prepared to say what we are going to do in regard to these matters. Day after day we state our policy in respect of these various peoples, because we have a basis for peaceful co-existence for the various peoples of Southern Africa. We are not afraid of saying so. We have more than one Bantu people in South Africa. Each of these peoples belongs to a different ethnic group, and we want to help them to develop a distinctive nationhood, to develop into a distinctive nation of which they will be proud, of which they will be so proud that they will not try to break through to the White race. This is a new pattern we are giving the world, a pattern of which we are proud, and time after time we invite the Opposition to accept that as a basis because the people of South Africa want that as a basis. Once they have accepted that, we can debate as adults, surely. Then we shall be able to conduct productive discussions in this House, not this sort of nonsense where two hon. members on the other side contradict each other within five minutes, in that one speaker accuses the Government of “-isms” and dogmas, while the other speaker claims that the Government has no policy at all. Surely, this is a joke, Sir, and with speeches of this sort nothing is left of parliamentary debating.

We are asking the Opposition: Do you accept the basic principle that we are a country with more than one people? In this country we have the White people, the Coloured people and also the various Bantu peoples. We do not deny this fact. We make no secret of it. When the Minister made this statement, one of the hon. members on the other side asked—I almost called it a silly question—what about the English and Afrikaans-speaking people, are they two separate peoples? Of course not. They are one people. In South Africa we have built a White nation out of people from many different nations who came here. One White nation originated here. We are one White nation with two cultures and two languages. We can respect each other’s culture and language, and each of them will develop its own culture into something fine. For the very reason that this side of the House is doing that, we in this Party have become a unit. We are not like an ostrich which buries its head in the sand and then thinks that it is safe. We know that old English saying of Sir Winston Churchill’s, namely, “You can fool some of the people all the time, and you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”. I say that they cannot bluff everybody all the time, because those hon. members are trying to overlook the realities of national existence in South Africa. They say, “Well, that is how it is, and that is how it will remain”.

Sir, what is our real national basis? Let us penetrate to the actual roots of our national existence. The hon. the Leader and his supporters who are laughing so heartily now, must tell me whether they accept this basis as the pattern for the future of South Africa. They must say whether they accept the fact that there will be co-existence of different peoples in South Africa for all times to come. Or does the United Party believe that we shall eventually degenerate into a sallowish hotch-potch? What is the policy of the United Party on these matters? It is simply impossible to have debates unless that side also announces a positive policy. It seems to me as though the hon. member for Sea Point feels like making a statement of policy. Well, I hope he does so the moment I sit down.

Sir, I am repeating the question. We want to know from those hon. members whether they accept the basic principles on which the entire policy of the National Party and the Government is founded. This is a policy we are implementing as a practical policy, piece by piece and step by step. We want to admit what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, namely that there are many major problems on our way. To-day he depicted these problems as being pitch-black and sky-high. One moment he said that it was absolutely impossible for us to manage without Bantu in our industries, and the next moment he complained about the growing numbers of Bantu. What then is the result, what logical conclusion must we draw in respect of the Leader’s point of view? Surely, an opposition should not only depict the impossibilities of a policy without wanting to offer a solution. Because then we must arrive at the logical conclusion that the hon. the Leader thinks that our survival as separate peoples, the survival of the White race as a separate race, is an impossibility. That is why he wants to destroy it; that is why he believes in racial integration. Am I right or am I wrong?

No, you are wrong.

The hon. member says I am wrong. Fine! If it happens to be impossible to implement the policy of separate development, if it is impossible to implement the policy of Bantu homelands, if it is impossible to bring about peaceful co-existence in South Africa—because this is what all the speeches on the other side have amounted to so far, namely the impossibility of implementing our policy of separate development, of Bantu homelands—then the next speaker on the Opposition side should kindly tell us what they definitely want. The Opposition must stop fencing in the dark. After all, we cannot debate a matter if the other side has not yet said what it wants. Surely in such circumstances we cannot set off policy against policy. What does the Opposition want if they do not want the Government’s projects? Since they are saying that separate development and Bantu homelands are impossible, what do they suggest? What does the Opposition want? As alternative I can see nothing but racial integration, and I put it to the Opposition that if they do not want racial integration, what else do they want? They want a unitary community, a community which, as I have said before, will eventually have a light brownish sort of colour.

I challenge hon. members on the other side to mention a country in which there was a predominantly black population and in which the White people in that country survived as a White people, without segregation having been applied. [Interjections.] The hon. member is being flippant.

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

No, Sir, I refuse point-blank to reply to a question from a member who says such absurd things, who claims that Namaqualand is such a country. I think it is too flippant a remark for any decent member of this House to make. I shall definitely not reply to that. I am afraid the hon. member for Sea Point should rather go swimming in the Sea Point swimming baths and see whether he finds anybody there to swim along with him. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Namaqualand, Mr. Speaker, has made a most remarkable speech here. He has travelled from one end of the country to the other. At the beginning he was in a sense an apologist for his own party. I do not think he has a lot of faith in what his Minister said here this afternoon and he was trying to divert the debate by asking all sorts of questions which he immediately started answering himself. The hon. member made a remarkable statement about people being fooled. Well, he certainly did not fool this House this afternoon.

We heard the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration telling us this afternoon about what he was going to do. We on this side thought that when he became a Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration he would change his tune, although I would not say he was always irresponsible. But we realized this afternoon that he was coming up with his usual bluster, because when he realized that he had no case and that he was in a most difficult position he adopted the old approach, namely “When you have no defence, attack, and do whatever you can”. In the recent no-confidence debate that side brought in the Johannesburg election. Similarly this afternoon the Deputy Minister thought he would bring in the pending Worcester election. What he is not going to say when he goes up to Worcester is nobody’s business. I hope that when he goes to Worcester he keeps his promise and tells the people there exactly what he told us in this House this afternoon. Because I think that the farming community and the industrialists at Worcester should like to hear what he said here this afternoon, what his plans are for them, what he intends to do to the farmer. I think that he would be doing us and the country a service if he went to Worcester and told them there exactly what he is going to do.

I should now like to talk about the Western Cape. Hon. members no doubt recall that in 1955 Dr. Eiselen made his famous statement to SABRA and then the hon. member for Malmesbury came out with the Van Staden line. The Government eventually adopted the Van Staden line which we know as the Eiselen line of the Western Cape, which refers to the removal of the Bantu. The former Prime Minister said, when he was Minister of Bantu Administration, that the policy of the Government was to remove the Bantu from the Western Cape. But being a man of experience he realized that this was not a practical proposition and that it could not be done overnight. He realized that this scheme should not have any unfavourable economic effect on the Western Cape and that it would have to be implemented gradually. When he later became Prime Minister he reiterated these principles. He appointed a Cabinet Committee which was established to carry out this policy of the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education was on his appointment allotted the task of removing the Bantu from the Western Cape. I think it was the hon. member for Heilbron who interjected this afternoon and said that his job was to remove them not only from the Western Cape but from the whole Republic. That was the job that was given to the Deputy Minister. I think it was contradicted by the hon. the Minister and he said: No, this only refers to the Western Cape. We have not got that quite clear. We must accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister is there to further this policy as far as the Western Cape is concerned. As a matter of fact, he placed his whole political life in jeopardy and said that if he failed to carry this out he would resign. We all know that the Deputy Minister is a good politician on the political platform, and naturally a statement like that would please his audience.

The whole policy of the removal of Bantu, as has been said by my Leader and other people, is part of an ideological plan. It goes right back to when the statement was made by the hon. member for Malmesbury at a meeting and it was adopted by the governing party. But it makes nonsense when one applies the ideology of moving a people whom we know as Bantu, who happen to be Black, but who are not animals. The hon. the Minister of Finance, a former Minister of Economic Affairs is an economist, and he must have great difficulty in trying to apply his mind to the effects of this policy as far as industry is concerned. We did say to him, when he was Minister of Economic Affairs, that here we have a case of political economy.