In terms of Standing Order No. 51, indicated that the debate on the Second Reading of the National Education Policy Bill, excluding the reply of the member in charge, would terminate not later than 12 o’clock noon to-day.

When the House adjourned last evening I had made reference to the Cape Education Ordinance of 1956, an Ordinance which was introduced by the Nationalist Party-controlled Provincial Council, under a Nationalist-appointed Administrator, an Ordinance which was accepted by the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province and an Ordinance the terms of which have so far been honoured by the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province. Sir, I think it is necessary that I should perhaps remind you of certain of the provisions of this Ordinance, and I propose to read two sections to you to indicate what was Cape Nationalist policy as recently as 1956. I read first of all from section 182 (1) of the ordinance. This provides for the medium of instruction up to Std. VIII—

It goes on further to include this further proviso—

That is up to Std. VI.

Order!

I would then proceed to read section 183 of this ordinance for the information of the hon. member for Malmesbury and others who sat in the Provincial Council at that time. Section 183 (1) provides—

Now it will be seen that the Cape Nationalist Party in the Provincial Council of this province enshrined in the educational system this particular ordinance which contains certain basic factors. The first is that at least in the Cape there is recognition of the fact of bilingualism; in other words, that a pupil might well receive instruction in either of the official languages, and if such a situation were to arise, that the parent should elect in which language that child should receive instruction after Std. V. Up to Std. V the ordinance enshrined what was the recommendation of educationalists, namely that in the primary standards, up to Std. V, it was desirable that the language in which the child was most proficient, the home language, the mother tongue, should be the medium of instruction. Thirdly, this ordinance accepted that there were three categories in which parental choice should operate. The hon. member for Algoa yesterday—I can only attribute it to ignorance of what has occurred in this province—attributed any suggestion of parental choice to some sort of aftermath of British sentiment. Sir, the parental choice was accepted in the Cape Province by the Nationalist Party and by the United Party and it has worked successfully. In the limited time still available for this debate I hope that one or other of the hon. members who fought strenuously for this ordinance in the Provincial Council and who now sit on the other side of the House will tell us why there has been this change of approach. This system in the Cape has stood the test of time. It has offered a certain flexibility for our children and it has been used by English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking parents. This latitude has been and is being used by hon. members on that side of the House. They deem it is sufficiently good for their own children that they can use this latitude and choose to send their children to an English-medium school, but they wish to deny it to the rest of the country. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether one of them will tell me that the University of Stellenbosch suffers because of the number of students from English-speaking schools in the Cape who go to that university? They go to the university because they are able to mix with the Afrikaans-speaking students. They have been able to mix with both language groups in the schools and they are able to switch to higher education in either language with great ease and to the benefit of the universities concerned. [Interjections.] I believe and I accept that the Cape tradition is perhaps foreign to a number of members of this House. It is something they do not understand, but I want to draw attention to the fact that we have just celebrated the fifth year of the Republic and a little before that, in 1960, we celebrated the 50 years of Union. I want to remind you, Sir, of the words used by Mr. N. J. de Wet, former Chief Justice of South Africa on that occasion, and I want to ask whether we are progressing in the right direction in the legislation we are discussing to-day. Mr. De Wet said this—

That was the criticism in 1960. What criticism would come from those members of the Convention, those founders of our nation, if they were able to sit here to-day and observe the legislation now before the House?

Sir, I believe that this is misguided legislation, and I say it with the utmost respect. I believe it is misguided because it provides that education policy in future will be prescribed by the Minister and he will put education into blinkers. It will replace the development in the mind of the scholar, the capacity to think, to reason and to decide according to the ageless principles of morality which do not need laws to enforce them. Our history in this country from its commencement has been strengthened by the determination of our people of English and of Afrikaans and of Huguenot extraction to get away from regimentation in the bringing up of their children. Now we attempt in this Bill to regiment to do what was abhorrent to the Huguenots and to the 1820 Settlers and to the Voortrekkers—to regiment the education of our children.

I want to take one other aspect. I do not wish to deal with the necessity of a religious and proper Christian background, which I accept. I do not want to question the necessity for an understanding of true South Africanism in education. I accept it. But what I cannot accept, and what the country cannot accept, is that the control by the parent of the child should be subject to the direction of the Minister. I would ask you this, Sir. Is the institution of marriage merely so that the parents can complete the biological function of producing children and then hand them over to the State? I would ask hon. members opposite to look, when they talk about Christian principles to be enshrined in this Act, at the service of marriage in their church and my church, to look at the service of baptism in their church and my church, and to say whether it is inherent that the State shall say how the child shall be educated, where and in what manner, or whether there is not a sacred responsibility on the parent, until the child has attained manhood? [Interjections.]

I want to deal with one or two other matters in regard to the method in which this new system of education will be applied, this system which some hon. member with a fertile imagination has described as the Magna Charta of education in South Africa. What is the position? There is the sugar-coating. The Nationalist Press gave great publicity to it before this Bill came before this House. They gave it the sugar-coating that there would be uniform conditions of service, a provision which will benefit many who labour under disadvantages at present. It contains provisions that there will be free schooling and free books. That will benefit many who wish to save the cost of educating their children. It provides that there will be uniform salaries paid throughout the Republic, and this is of obvious advantage to many teachers who are discriminated against. It provides that the parent community shall be given a place in the educational system—pious words, without any detail as to the manner in which they will exercise it. But these provisions collectively are merely the sugar-coating to the inner pill, which I believe is dangerous and something which this House should not be prepared to accept. This Bill provides, firstly, that the Minister shall observe what the hon. member for Kensington referred to as the Ten Commandments. But this is a facade to the fact that behind it is the authoritarian power of the Minister in terms of this Bill. What is he going to do? He is going to consult a council, but who are the members of the council? The members are appointed by the Minister and can be discharged by the Minister at will. He even goes so far as to say who shall represent the provinces on that council. I would have thought that the hon. members for Odendaalsrus and Benoni, whom I have seen at Administrators’ conferences which I have attended, fighting for the autonomy and the rights of their provinces, would have asked the hon. the Minister, as I will ask, whether he will not allow the provinces to nominate their own two representatives on that council? Will he not permit these teachers’ associations, whose suggestions will be considered provided they have had the blessing of recognition by the Minister, to appoint some people to the Council? He will call the Administrators to consult with him, and then no doubt he will meditate, and then comes what to me is the most extraordinary provision in any piece of legislation that I have ever seen. I refer to clause 2 (3). When the Minister has taken himself away and has quietly decided what policy he is going to adumbrate, he will then give notice “in such manner as he deems fit”. Having decided in solitude as to what is the right policy, he will then himself say how that policy is to be conveyed to the parents and the country in general. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that no educationist is taken in by this so-called consultation and by these so-called councils of advice which will advise the Minister. If the Minister wishes to acquire and build up some co-ordinated education policy for this country, then surely he has this machinery now. He holds Administrators’ conferences. He has his superintendent-generals of education and directors of education or their deputies who can confer and settle a policy. If there is suspicion and hesitation in the country as regards the acceptance of this Bill, then it is the very powers which the Minister desires to take unto himself in this Bill which are the cause of these suspicions and the cause of the unrest in our education circles. It is still possible at this stage for the hon. the Minister to give some semblance of standing, of educational background to this council which he proposes to establish. That was done in the 1962 legislation. He still had latitude, although he did not please everybody, in the exercising of his powers but at least there was some attempt to create a council which was representative of education in all parts of the country. The Minister, I believe, can still undertake in respect of this clause 3 to accept amendments to make that council a truly representative one and with which he will consult, a council which will not be bound to his grace and favour for its appointment or ultimate removal.

I believe that the Bill as it is before us is a step in the wrong direction. I believe that the law which we have had enshrined in the ordinance of the Cape Province is the correct approach which should be made to education. I believe that it has worked. We have had the co-operation and the support of parents and past pupils to build up this education system. It is a system under which we have witnessed in our cities, as is the case at Rondebosch for instance the establishment of the great new Groote Schuur Hoërskool, planned in advance by a committee of parents, supporting, strengthening and taking a direct interest in that school, as parents have done in the past in the case of Rondebosch Boys’ High School or any other of the big schools. But that spirit will disappear and all that will remain will be for parents to take the instructions from the hon. the Minister as to how education shall be conducted. I believe that, that will be a fatal step in the educational life of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this advanced stage of the debate, firstly to deal with the comments of certain members of the Opposition and then to confine myself to what I regard as the broad fundamental basis of this legislation. The hon. member for Durban (North) tried to make a point regarding the clause in the Bill which provides that a Christian character shall be pursued in this education policy. What is not quite clear to me and what I hope the speakers following me will be more explicit on is what exactly is meant by that. It is generally known that the first section of our Constitution Act professes and provides for such a view of life and of the world. For this and for other reasons the viewpoint set out by the hon. member for Durban (North) is not quite clear to me, except that it seeks to disseminate and arouse suspicion. I have a further problem, namely the objection to the description of the broad national character. Broad nationalism is in no way founded on the narrow concept of race theories and restricted political views, but on love for one’s family, one’s own state, Christian convictions, respect for the past and the desire for liberty which is founded on selfcontrol and self-respect. In view of the fact that there have been references to the difference between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking South African citizens, I should like the Opposition speakers to explain to me whether the Afrikaans- and English-speaking citizens do not have this concept of broad nationalism in common. The hon. member for Salt River said that despite the assurance in the wording of this Bill and that given by the Minister in his second speech, he saw politics in the Bill. I think the time has come to remove these political spectacles of the Opposition for a moment. Is it their opinion, by implication, that there are English-speaking South Africans who do not share or cherish this attitude regarding our Christian and broad national views? They should tell us, because the public outside wants to know that. Here it is in the Bill—the broad national and the Christian character in accordance with which our training shall take place.

What about clause 2?

I am dealing with clause 2.

What about the rest of it?

I want to refer the hon. member for Durban (North) to what the British Church said as long ago as 23rd April, 1923, regarding the liberal viewpoint which is propagated as the antipode of the viewpoint embodied in this Bill. It is reported in the Church Times of London, of 23rd April, 1923. They cautioned against the godless, scientific humanism, the Bolshevism, which sought to destroy the Christian faith and the English Church. Does the hon. member for Durban (North) acknowledge and accept this statement and viewpoint on the part of his own church, when he ventures into theological views such as those which he tried to advocate? I think it is time we settled this matter. On the very narrow front of the United Party and the attitudes they adopted in the past few days, specifically in respect of these two basic principles, namely the Christian character and the broad national character which education is to assume, are they advocating the standpoint of nationalism in its true sense or are they advocating the standpoint of the liberalism, which endeavours to strike at this specific attitude to life? Liberalism knows that if it succeeds in striking at the tradditional and cultural heritage of a nation, it can also automatically neutralize and cause the extinction of that nation’s urge for liberty and national determination. Do we find in the standpoints of the Opposition an unexpressed revelation of the alliance with this line of thinking, as revealed throughout the world? Is it a “phoney” front under the colours of pretended South African piety, but with one hand behind the back, in the power of liberalism, which does not promote national control but liberal tyranny in the world and also in this country? This is an appalling and sobering basic truth in respect of which the United Party should give us some clarity in this debate. They should say whether in the attitude they have adopted in respect of this Bill they are entering into an alliance with liberalism and with those people who want to undermine everything which is traditional and cultural in order that they may also neutralize and ultimately destroy that nation’s urge for selfdetermination. I think they owe it to the Christian and English-speaking citizens of South Africa to tell us where they stand in respect of this basic premise. There have been references to the restriction of the right of parents, etc. Clause 2 (1) (h) reads as follows—

This is an acknowledgement of the parents’ democratic right to take an active part—not a theoretical part—as regards the education of his child. To this hon. members are adopting the attitude that they do not trust it, that it is autocratic, that it is being imposed from above. To me that reveals pretence. Those hon. members should reveal their true attitude, and motivate it in clear-cut terms, as this Bill is motivated.

On the front of human relations throughout the world the axiom that peace is war obtains at present. Cold wars are the order of the day, inside and outside virtually all national boundaries. The armament employed is neither the terrifying atom-bomb nor the military army, but front organizations, virtually innumerable ones, which launch one onslaught after another on the spiritual heritage of individuals and free nations. My question is: Is there an alliance between the liberal standpoint and pronouncements of the United Party and this world-wide phenomenon? As a weapon they employ the evil of undermining the cultural and traditional heritage of, take note, both White and black man. This weapon is used mainly by Communism, or to express it in more euphemistic terms, by scientific humanism. Their ideal and object are not national control and national rule, but liberal tyranny, and everything that hints of tradition and principle must be replaced by that which is lawless and unbridled. On the banner of the United Party and of their allies we read that they claim a liberal tyranny and liberal domination, and they do so in a hazy atmosphere of spiritual muddle and confusion. This is so; it is true—a cold war, a war in peace-time.

This Opposition is engaged in no less in this country of ours. It is under these circumstances, and in view of the campaigns which have been launched and with which I should like to deal at greater length, that our Government is now introducing a national education Bill, a Bill which affects the education of our children and a Bill which is the most important bulwark against all these assaults. And a party, a “phoney” front here in South Africa, has the temerity to oppose it! If that cannot be explained as ignorance of what is happening around them, they are doing it from an ulterior motive—political gain. There is no third alternative. Apart from the institution of the Republic and apart from the adoption of the principle of separate development of all the race groups in our country, I know no measure and I know of no greater effort on the part of this Government to act positively and with a view to the present juncture. In my view these are basically the ultimate motives for this legislation, and not the concealed motives which the United Party seeks to ascribe to us.

This Bill proposes to defend the greatest asset of any generation, the sound spirit and mind and the synchronized hands of its children, against those onslaughts. What responsibility can be greater? What effort can be more laudible than an effort to provide the means for securing this asset? This is indeed great legislation, and a great moment for the children of our country.

We read about front organizations such as the Hollywood Independence Citizens Committee of the Arts, Science and Professions, an organization which was described by the Californian Committee on un-American activities as “the Communistic front to undermine and infiltrate the creators of the film and entertainment”. [Interjections.] We read about the Anti-defamation League and its incomparable race integration ideologies as the public arm of Communism in foreign countries. We find manifestations of liberal infiltration in international student and trade-union organizations, and we read about expenditure of up to $620 million per year by just one of these organizations, in order to bolster their onslaughts, onslaughts on what is traditional and essential to the survival of a nation. We read about church organizations which under the pretext of theological congresses discuss the physical overthrow of governments and autonomous states. Yes, Mr. Speaker, peace is war, and because this is the case, we thank the Minister and the Government all the more for this attempt to do away with the shortcomings in the efficiency on the front of the education of our youth, and for an attempt to establish a more effective national education policy by means of scientific planning, a policy which is aimed at the refinement of the human spirit, the enhancement of the talent and efficiency of our people, the development of the great potential of Western civilization and its reinforcement against the onslaughts of the vendors of those spiritual commodities which are trademarked “liberal tyranny”.

From the earliest days, from the times of the Celtic and Germanic romanticism, through the developing cultures of the Hellenics and the Romans, through the fabulous beauty of the Middle-ages, through the ennobling Renaissance period and down to the middle of the present century, the Arian Western civilization was characterized by its respect for tradition and the awareness of dignity in the human being, and by a great gift for realism, a gift derived from its love of order in the Creation. Directly opposed to this we now find the spiritual products of modern art, entertainment and politics—which were also reflected in this debate—products which are characterized by being consciously non-traditional, opposed to the concepts of human dignity, and which consequently lend priority to perverted, imperfect and warped psychopathic tendencies. Those are the alliances which are formed nowadays.

Although that is true to a large extent as far as the creative arts, such as painting and music, are concerned, it also applies to the applied arts, such as dancing and entertainments. Nowadays the plastic arts seize on abstract motives and reject realism virtually in toto. They want to break away from nature and its properties, from tradition and from nationhood. Where attempts are made to represent the human being, it is represented abstractly and the result is distortion—of which we have a good example in the Gardens. The natural characteristics of mankind and state are sacrificed to the abnormal which is unnatural and, to us, devoid of all content, meaning and message. It neither is nor is allowed to be the aristocratic, the national or that which is founded on the community or the environment—no, it has to be the personification of phantasy, the derivational; thus it moves further and further away from that which is conservative and natural.

Let us compare with this the bust of Julius Ceasar or the earlier Greek portraits of Alexander the Great, with their message of fine racial type and characteristic lines, in contrast with the faceless, raceless and masshumanitarian examples with which so many Christian churches in Europe are decorated nowadays.

The old Western music was and is characterized by pure note and melody; also as far as national music is concerned. A lofty appeal was made to the intellect and to the higher instincts in man. To what extent, I ask, are these characteristics now being replaced by the rhythm of the forest, coupled to an appeal to sensation and the primitive instincts in mankind?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the onslaughts made on the survival of the traditional, and with the bulwark that education has to form against them.

The music trade has prepared the way not only for the assimilation but also for the idealizing of the forest dweller. Even now it is true of many Western countries that the cultural heroes of popular music are certainly no longer recognizable as Western. In most cases the heroes of popular music are non-White in origin. Where previously melody was coupled to elegance, sensation is now coupled to modern rhythms. Compare the traditional European dance to the “limbo”, the “frug” and “Watusi”. Compare the grace of classic ballet to the gymnastic practice pranks of modern ballet. In the Western world we are nowadays invited to witness an extraordinary jumping and shouting and uncovered breasts, of non-Whites …

Order! The hon. member is going too far now. The hon. member is discovering too many things.

This Bill does not provide for the realization of the narrow views which Opposition speakers find in it. For my part, the modern perils are so black and so red and matters on the battlefield of the spirit so disquieting that we are called upon to object firmly, positively and finely, and to build up fronts against this defeatism. We must not allow ourselves to be deceived by the sham front of United Party criticism and other related negative fronts. For my part, the principle of this legislation is founded on the conviction that it has become urgently necessary to build up a defence against those onslaughts which are made on us and our children, onslaughts which are aimed at undermining our culture and traditions. This legislation is founded on the conviction that it is our bounden duty to create ways and means of safe-guarding our children against the results of these negative onslaughts, and at the same time to foster the positive spiritual and physical material offered by our children, inorder that there may be greater security as regards the survival of Western civilization on the continent of Africa.

I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Randburg and it appeared to me as though the hon. member wanted to entrust a virtually superhuman task to our educationists and to the hon. the Minister, because he wanted them to protect and safeguard the child and future generations in South Africa in such a way that no foreign ideologies whatsoever would have a chance to take root here. I want to tell the hon. member that he need not be so pessimistic, because all the things mentioned by him come about gradually. They come in cycles. From time to time it happens that people suddenly go in for wild dancing. The hon. member for Randburg gave a description of that which I do not want to repeat …

With minidresses.

Yes, wild dancing and mini-skirts. But essentially man always remains conservative; he wants to retain what he knows already, despite the onslaughts made on the human spirit, the human body and soul. I want to tell the hon. member that he need not be so pessimistic, and if he wanted to entrust this task to our educationists and to the Minister, he would be setting them a virtually superhuman task.

The hon. member asked whether we on this side of the House were not entering into an alliance with the world liberalists through our standpoint in respect of this Bill. No, I believe the attitude of this side of the House is truly South African, as we know South Africa and as we have built up South Africa with our two cultures, with the co-operation of both language groups in this country. This side of the House is most certainly not entering into the alliance with world liberalism to which the hon. member referred. This Opposition is firmly rooted in the soil of South Africa, and I think the hon. member is doing us an injustice when he accuses us of being prepared to co-operate with people and elements who are alien to our national tradition. Mr. Speaker, when the United Party Opposition adopts a certain attitude in this House on any legislative measure—and that also applies to this Bill—then we believe that we adopt that attitude in the interests of South Africa, with no liaison with anybody on the outside. This side of the House spurns any person or any element which seeks to force its attitude onto South Africa. They have no right to do so, and this Opposition is not prepared to listen to such elements.

I listened to the speeches made by hon. members on that side and in particular to the speech made by the hon. the Minister when he introduced the debate, and I wondered in what kind of a country we grew up; did we grow up in a barbaric un-Christian country? Did we grow up in a country where until now we have had no educational facilities? Did we grow up uncultured and illiterate? Listening to the way the hon. the Minister presented his case and judging by the reasons he advanced for this legislation, I thought that the progress we had made in the field of education had been very meagre until now and that only the steps the hon. the Minister was taking would help us here in South Africa to relinquish our barbarity and our unchristianity, and that through the adoption of this legislation a new day would break for South Africa. According to the hon. the Minister and according to other hon. members on that side, South Africa will now be able to wipe out its manpower shortage; once this Bill has been passed, we shall be able to churn out technologists, scientists and managers like sausages from a machine; give us a national education policy and we shall be able to solve all our problems. This measure is the magic wand we need to change this horrible South Africa, which cannot make any progress in the field of education, into a land of milk and honey, a country where in future we shall be able to pick up a scholar with heavy-rimmed spectacles and a brief-case under any tree. Once this legislation is passed, our thoughts in South Africa will be pure; our actions will always be correct; we will neither tell nor listen to a naughty joke; we will not even go and see a daring film. We must accept this Bill, for until now South Africa has been a Sodom and Gomorrah where no Commandment was obeyed. All this will be something of the past once we have a national education policy! What is more, once this legislation has been passed, we shall cherish no more unnational ideas; we shall all be inspired by a South African spirit, as the hon. member for Randfontein said. If one approaches on shipboard and one sees the blue Table Mountain appear in the distance, one will say: “That is my old Table Mountain.” The ship will move too slowly; for one will want to jump overboard and swim ashore, only too glad to breathe the air of Mother South Africa and to say: “This is my country.” That is the impression I got from the speeches made by hon. members on that side, that this legislation will be the Alpha and the Omega to place South Africa on the right track, on the way to Christianity, on the way to national sentiments, and will produce the very best results in education.

That is how hon. members on that side and the hon. the Minister wrapped this legislation in the wool of their imaginations—pounds and pounds of imaginative wool—and they have taken all this trouble to stop just one practice which they abhor, and that is the practice of so-called unnational elements in South Africa, according to them, who want to bring up their children in a language other than the mother tongue. That is the only reason for the introduction of this Bill. As long ago as 1959 we heard about this Bill from the then Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science, at present the Prime Minister of South Africa. According to The Eastern Province Herald of 29th September, 1959, he addressed a meeting at Fouriesburg. I quote from the report—

Even eight years ago it was said by the present Prime Minister that the object of this national education policy was to apply the principle of mother-tongue instruction in South Africa, as it is applied in all the provinces except Natal. The previous Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, said, according to The Argus of 8th August, 1959—

I said that the hon. the Prime Minister said in 1959, when he was Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science, that legislation would be introduced to apply the concept of mothertongue instruction in all provinces except Natal. Despite all the fine words used here by hon. members on that side of the House, I see that as the only reason why this Bill is before the House to-day. If hon. members consulted Hansard on the debates held in this House five years ago, they would see that even then we told them that the proposed national advisory council was merely the forerunner of a national education policy. To-day we are just as strongly opposed to that national education council as we were then. At that time we told the hon. the Minister and members of the Select Committee put it to him very clearly, that we were prepared to give him a national education advisory council provided that that council would be constituted by the educationists of South Africa, who are best able to say whom they want on that council, but the hon. the Minister was not prepared to listen to that; he wanted to constitute that council in his own way. In terms of clause 2 of this Bill the principles of the education policy will be applied in South Africa in accordance with the ten principles set out therein. The attitude of this side of the House is consistent. Our attitude to-day is exactly the same as that which we adopted in 1962, when we said that we were not prepared to vote for the Minister’s education council because the council would be constituted the wrong way, and, secondly, because it would be the forerunner of a national education policy. We maintain that a national education policy in South Africa is unnecessary. So far we have entrusted all those functions to the provinces and they have fulfilled those functions excellently, despite the fact that we may not like the temporary majority which happens to be in power in a particular province.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speeches of some 15 members on that side of the House and I found the speech of the hon. member for Benoni rather surprising. What did the hon. member say? He said that it was not the task of education to bring about a united nation. I believe that there are many educationists on that side of the House who are qualified to speak on this subject, and here an hon. member who used to be a member of the Executive Committee of the Transvaal got up and said that it was not the task of education to bring about a united nation. How the hon. member could say anything like that surpasses my understanding, and that is why we entertain suspicions about this legislation. Hon. members on that side told us time and again: “Surely you are not opposed to Christian national education?” But an attitude exactly similar to that of the hon. member for Benoni was adopted by Professor Van Rooyen at that time. They do not see the necessity for bilingualism, and they do not see the necessity for mixing the two language groups on our school grounds. This is what Professor Van Rooyen said—

If the object of education is not to help to cultivate a united people in South Africa, what is its object? If the hon. member for Benoni was a teacher, he was most certainly not in the class of Professor Ben Taute in Stellenbosch, for what did that scholar teach us constantly, as future teachers, through his book on educational teaching? He said one does not simply offer the child an opportunity to learn to read and write and reckon, but that one should also make a good human being of him. What could be more educational in South Africa than helping our two language groups to come closer together? Surely that is education in the true sense of the word in our circumstances. I maintain that the statement made by the hon. member for Benoni is more or less like the objective of Christian national education, that bilingualism is not the object of education.

A further argument advanced by hon. members on the opposite side is that it is the duty of the State to protect the child of a foolish parent. But the parent is responsible every day and accepts more responsibilities every day in respect of his child. He is constantly taking decisions on behalf of the child. If the parent does not look after his child properly he is called a bad parent. The State has a responsibility only in extreme cases of ill-treatment, and then only to see to it that the parent is punished for such a crime. The parent is already accepting all responsibility for his child, and why should we not also entrust this responsibility to him? Surely it is extraordinary that he should have all responsibilities in respect of the child, and all we do not give him is the right to decide on the medium in which his child should be instructed.

Listening to some of the so-called educationists on that side of the House, I think it is a very good thing that the parent himself should decide on the medium through which a child is to be instructed, instead of leaving it to certain teachers and the State.

It was also said, and I want to conclude with this, that divided control should be abolished, but what is the case now? Here Parliament and the Minister will lay down the principles of a policy, but the provinces will be charged with executing them. In future this Parliament will have the right to talk about primary and secondary education, but the provinces may still do exactly the same as in the past. Surely that is nothing but more divided control. In due course Parliament will either have to take over primary and secondary education completely, or we shall find the position untenable and that the provinces and we will be able to decide on exactly the same matters. What is more, there will so frequently be the passing of the buck. We shall blame the provinces and they will blame Parliament. What will happen then? Then there will not be undivided control. Then, even more, there will be divided control in the future. We adhere to our opposition to this legislation, because we think that the council constituted by the hon. the Minister is the wrong one under the circumstances, and furthermore because we appreciate that the parent is the best person to decide on the fate of his child. The parent is no longer as ignorant as 50 years ago. They, too, have made some progress and they do only that which is in the interests of their children. I therefore want to conclude with the words written by Dewey in the chapter “The Democratic Conception in Education”, in his book Democracy and Education—

And that is what the hon. the Minister wants to do.

The hon. member for Newton Park said, inter alia, that one of the objects of education was to build a united nation. I am inclined to agree with him in that regard. It is one of the objects of education to produce good citizens for the country, but the difference is, of course, what kind of united nation is meant. If it is the united nation that the United Party pictures to itself, it will lead to a peculiar state of affairs, because in their nation they include the Blacks. The hon. member for Salt River said here that the Blacks were also part of the nation. As a matter of fact, their idea of a race federation includes the Blacks as part of the nation. They are also South Africans, as has already been said here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well. The United Party’s concept of a nation is not the same as ours, nor is it the same as the one which is generally accepted as the correct scientific concept of a nation. I do not want to enlarge on that now, but I just want to point out that it depends a great deal on what kind of united nation one wants to be promoted by education.

The great deal of interest being shown in this legislation in our country is an indication of the intimate relationship that exists between education and the nation. It is true that the child is the focal point of education, as has been emphasized here by various hon. members, but the kind of nation that will be produced will depend largely on the kind of education received by the children of that nation.

Therefore, it is quite natural that the Opposition should be so concerned about what they call indoctrination, because the kind of nation the Opposition wants to build is not the same as what is generally regarded as a nation. They have their own idea of what the nation of South Africa should be.

In the first place, it must be a nation without any principles. As their great former leader, General Louis Botha, said in 1905 (translation)—

That was what later came to be called conciliation. It was to produce that kind of united nation that General Botha had said that we should not adopt too unbending an attitude, and that principles were the main causes of the disunity between what he at that time called Boer and Briton. That is the nation they envisage, a nation without principles.

Secondly, it must be a nation without any inspiration, inspiration it would otherwise have derived from its own South African national tradition. It must be a “Sap” nation, a soft nation, and in order to bring that about, care should be taken in education not to tell the children that they have a national tradition of which they can be proud. For that reason the past should as much as possible be regarded as dead. For the united nation they want to produce they also regard it as dangerous to lay emphasis on the past or even to mention it, because they are afraid that the English-speaking section will take offence if the past is mentioned. For that reason it has always been and it is still being said that the past should be left alone. I mention this because the past is in many respects bound up with the history of education and the syllabuses. They do not realize that the English-speaking people in South Africa are no longer Britons, but that they are South Africans now. If their feelings are still offended if reference is made to the past in South Africa, they are not South Africans yet. I also want to say that I feel much more at liberty to extend my hand to an English-speaking person if I am able to make him understand that my past is not something to be ashamed of, and I am sure he will also feel more inclined to take my hand if he knows that I have a past of which I need not be ashamed.

That is therefore the kind of nation they want. But if an English-speaking person is not prepared to accept that soulless, soft “Sap” nation without any principles, he is branded as a “quisling”, as though the generally accepted concept of a quisling is not that it is a person who places himself in the service of a foreign country and particularly of a foreign conqueror, as we experienced in South Africa when Boer generals became British field-marshals. No, I take my hat off to an English-speaking person who finds himself unable to accept that concept of a nation of the United Party and who has the courage to declare openly that he is a South African with a South African patriotism and loyalty to South Africa alone. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I was so interested in this term “indoctrination” that I looked up its definition in the Oxford English Dictionary. What does it really mean? I am sure that particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove will be interested in this. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition, and this is very interesting:

Then the following sentence is quoted—

I do not see such a terrible bogey here, Mr. Speaker. What it really amounts to is that the great danger hon. members opposite see in indoctrination—as defined by the Oxford Dictionary—is that they are afraid that the children will be taught. Because that is all the dictionary says. It means to teach them—“to teach, to imbue with learning”.

In all fairness to the hon. members of the Opposition, however, I want to say that they apparently have their own dictionary and their own definition of “indoctrination”. On another occasion I asked the hon. member for Orange Grove whether he could give us a definition of this word, and then he said the following: “I should say indoctrination is to try and instil ideas into the mind of a child which are not in accordance with the true facts.” That is his own definition of indoctrination. It is a very interesting definition. It means that as long as the truth is proclaimed at is not indoctrination. According to the United Party’s definition the teachers of our country are at liberty to proclaim the truth, for example that the earth is round. They may also teach that during the evolution of a new nation in South Africa there was a life-and-death struggle against imperialism and barbarism. That is the truth. Let the teachers of South Africa take note that, according to the definition of the United Party, they will no longer be guilty of indoctrination in future as long as they proclaim the truth.

Mr. Speaker, in clause 2 (1) (f) and (g) reference is made to the needs of our country, to the fact that the education policy should be adapted accordingly, to the co-ordination of syllabuses on a national basis, and so forth. One of the needs in this country is a correct national concept. I want to suggest for consideration by the hon. the Minister that the guidance we had from President Kruger in this respect may serve to bring about a correct national concept in education. He said the following (translation)—

On that basis we shall be able to build a nation “rooted in our national history”, a nation with a vigorous spirit, a nation inspired by its past, by its heroic tradition, a nation inspired by its consciousness of the sacrifices its forefathers made to win this country for civilization. Thus the heritage of our fathers will remain the heritage of our children.

As regards the syllabuses I want to draw attention to the importance of history as a subject, on this very basis, for the very purpose of keeping “the roots of our national history” strong and healthy. Every method should be applied to make history interesting as a school subject. There is a general aversion to history as a subject to-day. Why? I think the reason is that large numbers of minor facts are presented to the pupils, minor facts which even the teacher cannot remember. The teacher himself has to look up those facts again every time in order to be able to teach them to the pupils. Such minor facts have nothing whatsoever to do with the existing conditions, conditions that create problems which have to be solved by our children, whom we are trying to equip for that task. That makes the subject so uninteresting, so monotonous, that a certain amount of aversion is created among the children to this very important and. in fact, essential subject. In the teaching of history more use should be made of stories. History itself should be presented in the form of a great story, an adventure story of the evolution of a new nation in South Africa, and also of humanity. What is there that interests a child more than a story, Mr. Speaker?

I should like to tell hon. members of a teacher I had in my primary school days. The hon. the Minister and I had the privilege of having as a teacher a certain Dutch schoolmaster. I may say in passing that I find it a particular pleasure to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this Bill. In any case, the teacher to whom I am referring and to whom I want to pay tribute here, was a certain Mr. Munstra. I think the hon. the Minister and I were contemporary pupils of his in Stds. III. IV and V. I still remember clearly—and perhaps the hon. the Minister will also remember —how this teacher used to seat himself sideways on the table every Friday afternoon and then told us some fine story or other about the Eighty Years’ War. He did not tell us the history of that war, but he told us of the adventures Jan and Piet had in that war and, Sir, without actually realizing it we got to know the history of the Eighty Years’ War. I think it is most essential that attention be given to this method of teacing history in co-ordinating the syllabuses on a national basis.

Mr. Speaker, this measure meets a very important need. With this legislation we can face the future with confidence to build a united and inspired nation in South Africa, a nation determined to hold its own in this world in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has dealt with South Africanism, with indoctrination, and with the education policy which at present exists in South Africa. It appears to me to be an indictment of our present system. We are told from time to time that in South Africa to-day we are developing a true South Africanism. I think the hon. member points a finger at this side of the House to try and indicate that perhaps we, the United Party, are not persons who uphold true South Africanism. I contend that this is completely unfounded. We as members of the United Party have at all times endeavoured to be true South Africans, and at the present time we are practising true South Africanism as members of the United Party. We believe that we act in the best interests of South Africa. We believe in the policy which we adopted in the province of Natal whereby in terms of the Education Ordinance parallel-medium schools exist. We believe that those parallel-medium schools are serving a purpose in the best interests of South Africa. We believe that we as South Africans should bring Together our English and Afrikaans-speaking people at all times and at all levels. What better level is there where they can be brought together than in the schools? That is why it is an important principle of United Party policy, particularly in the province of Natal, that parental choice shall prevail. Moreover, parallel-medium schools is the policy of the United Party-controlled provincial council in Natal.

How many such schools are there?

All schools in terms of the Education Ordinance are parallel-medium schools. It requires 15 persons to make application for a class to be taught in’ another language, and that class is provided’ provided the funds and staff are available. All Natal’s schools are parallel-medium. We must get that position absolutely clear. In terms of the Education Ordinance they are all parallel-medium schools.

No, that is not true.

That is the aim and the policy of the United Party. We believe in free parental choice. Surely these are cardinal principles? Are these traditions, these principles which have been built up since Union to be cast out of the window of the Minister’s office? We have heard so much of tradition, of South Africanism, and of the fostering of a true South Africanism. Yet a tradition which has been built up in Natal, and endorsed at election after election by the provincial electorate of Natal, is now to be circumvented by the policy of this Minister. I believe that this is the main reason why people, particularly those people who live in Natal, will support this amendment asking that this Bill be read “this day six months”. If it was possible to have a stronger amendment, such amendment would be moved, Mr. Speaker. The people of Natal are incensed because their feelings are ignored and because the policy which they approve of and which has been the traditional policy in Natal, is threatened by this Minister. I do not wish to become personal, Sir, but I believe it to be even more pertinent when we consider that this Minister, who will administer this policy, is not even an elected member of this House. He is a Senator. What mandate has this Minister received from the people to bring about the change of policy which this Bill envisages? [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon. members opposite say that what I am saying is rot. Perhaps they can tell me when last the hon. the Minister was a candidate in a general election?

Oh, but that is a feeble argument.

Yes, because it suits you that it is a “swak” argument. I believe that the people of Natal have endorsed the policy in force there, a policy which has been adhered to by the provincial executive to the best of their ability, an executive which was elected by the United Party. These people believe that on behalf of the child and in his interests the parent shall have the right to decide on the language medium. Several hon. members on that side who have participated in this debate have placed a completely wrong interpretation and complexion on the present situation in Natal. I believe that they have done so in order to be able to thank the Minister for the action he is now taking. According to them there has been so much persecution and neglect of the Afrikaans-speaking people in Natal that the Minister was compelled to act. I believe that to be the main object of the speeches made by hon. members on that side representing Natal constituencies.

Hon. members from Natal, including the hon. member for Zululand, also alleged that a great deal of prejudice was exercised against the Afrikaans-speaking community of Natal. I believe that to be utter and complete nonsense. It is utterly and completely rejected by the facts. The facts are that where the provincial executive committee has the funds and the staff then additional schools are provided. And I mentioned earlier that in terms of the Natal Education Ordinance these schools in principle are parallel-medium schools. And, it happens, very often by agitation and by political motives that politicians try to split these schools on a ’basis of English-medium and Afrikaans-medium. I believe this to be a most retrogressive step if ever that step is taken, because it: is a most important and fundamental factor in bringing our people together and to foster true South Africanism. The position is that on occasions you have a group of parents, often led and agitated by a leading politician, leading member of the Nationalist Party, who then agitates for a separate school for those people. And if that separate school is not created we have these people making the type of speeches they made here to-day, saying that they are being prejudiced, neglected and persecuted. It is utter nonsense. Wherepossible the provincial administration has established such schools. It is the free will of the parents. Surely this is a fundamental factor in dealing with the whole education policy, namely this question of free parental choice and the feelings of the parents. The hon. the Minister referred to the question of the parents and their role in our educational system. It is a vitally important part of our educational system. I had the privilege to serve for a time in the Natal Provincial Council. In the constituency that I represented we had three Afrikaans-medium schools with Afrikaans as their language medium. If at any time 15 or more persons had wished the establishment of classes at those schools for the administering of English-speaking classes, it would have been possible for them to do so. Their case would have been placed before the provincial executive committee. However, I wish to mention that these three particular schools are some of the finest schools in the whole of the province. I believe the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was a pupil of one of those schools, namely the “Hoërskool Port Natal”.

The hon. member is talking rubbish now.

He says he was not. [Interjections.] Will the hon. member deny that the facilities of the Port Natal High School are not the finest that can be provided?

Yes.

The hon. member denies that. [Interjections.] He does not deny it. [Interjections.]

There is only one school, the hon. member says. That is all.

What about Voortrekker High School? [Interjections.] There are many fine Afrikaans-medium schools in Natal. And I lived in a particular area in Durban which is in the middle of these three Afrikaans schools. And I can remember many years ago as a small boy the building of Port Natal High School. It is still one of the finest schools in the province, not merely academically, but also in terms of brick and mortar and playing fields. They have one of the finest halls in the province. Their playing fields are regarded as perhaps the best in the province. The inter-district schools sports meetings and so on are invariably held at that sportsground. They have provisions and facilities at that school which I believe are the finest in the province. Now, when it was decided that there should be a primary school for the Port Natal High School, it was built by the Natal province, a brand new building, a brand new school and a very fine school indeed. That is the Port Natal Primary School, the “Laerskool Port Natal”. This is another very fine school built by the province at the wish and the whim of the desires of the people, tthe parents of the Afrikaans-speaking children. This is a very fine school indeed. I remember that after being elected as a provincial councillor, as a matter of fact my very second day after having been elected, I was asked to call at the Port Natal Primary School to discuss matters with the headmaster and also the chairman of the parents’ association. The parents’ association chairman also happened to be secretary of the Nationalist Party. But that made no difference whatsoever. The matters that were discussed concerned the acquiring of more land for the extension of that school. They required land for the purpose of a tennis court. And I certainly pay the highest compliment to the Afrikaans-speaking parents of Natal in that they are community conscious and that they are prepared to give full time attention to the matters affecting the education of their children. And when they were told that it would be necessary as is the case with all other schools, that that particular provision would have to be on a rand for rand basis, those parents rallied around and saw that the funds were available. These people raised those funds within a period of four or five months, and the province met their requirements by making a rand for rand contribution and a magnificent tennis court was erected at that school. Now, it was not long after that that the same Afrikaans-speaking parents came forward and said that they should now also have an infant school for the education of their children prior to the primary school. And there too a fine new building was built more or less in the same area where the Port Natal Primary School was built, so as to afford those people education from the lowest possible standard or class right up to matriculation. And I believe that the Natal Provincial Council, far from neglecting or being prejudiced against the Afrikaans-speaking community in Natal, they dealt with every case on its merits, irrespective of whether Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking parents were concerned. They dealt with it on its merits and the availability of funds. And I am quite sure that if greater funds were made available by the Central Government to the provincial administration in Natal we would see a true fulfilment of the educational policy as propounded by the Natal Provincial Council and by the Natal Provincial Administration. But, we must bear in mind at all times this whole question of building up true South Africanism. And I believe that the most important clause in this Bill is obviously the question of the development of education on a broad national character. And that is why there has been such a great deal of discussion concerning the broad national character of education. But there is a vast difference.

Do you support it?

Naturally, I support it. I believe that if it is to mean true South Africanism, then naturally I support it. But, if it is to mean a sectional South Africanism then I certainly do not support it. [Interjections.] The emphasis must be on broad South Africanism. That is where the emphasis must be, and not on sectionalism. Unfortunately, from members opposite we have only heard pleas of sectionalism. The hon. member who spoke just before me made me think that he was living in the far distant past, in the bitterness of the past. Surely that is all behind us. Surely South Africa is now living in an atmosphere of South Africanism? Is the clock to be put back? Because, if the hon. the Minister does not accept parallel-medium schools and free parental choice, surely then there is a threat to building up a true South Africanism? Those are two fundamental factors in any educational policy. And that is why when the hon. the Minister replies to this debate I hope that he will give some indication and greater detail to his definition of the national character in terms of this Bill which he intends to bring about as the policy of education in South Africa. Here we have a Bill before us with vast powers being placed in the hands of one solitary Minister.

We feel very strongly indeed that it is not in the interests of education that merely this Minister’s policy is the one that should be put into effect. There are many other educationists that disagree with many points concerning education as propounded by the Nationalist Party and by the Nationalist Government. The report of the Panel on “Education and the South African Economy”, a report published by eminent educationists, sets out very clearly many of the problems facing education. And, this is dealt with on a non-political basis. This to my mind is the very crux of the difficulty in regard to education, namely that it is continually being dealt with on a political basis. If it could be dealt with in the true interests of South Africa and of future South Africans then we must take cognizance of the views of these educationists. In this report there are some very important recommendations which cover the aspects of Central Government.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 51 and debate adjourned.

It being 12 o’clock noon the House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Other hon. members on this side of the House will illustrate some of the other aspects of this motion. As far as I am concerned, I want to confine myself to its first aspect. My story begins on 27th January, 1959, the date on which the former Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, made a speech in this House, a speech which, I think, history will still point out as being one of the most significant—if not the most significant—speech which has ever been made in this House. If I could summarize that speech, I should do so by quoting from it the following two sentences, words used by Dr. Verwoerd himself on that occasion—

If we look back at the period of eight years which has passed since these words were spoken, I think that as regards South African politics we can say to one another to-day that this speech of Dr. Verwoerd’s contains the final formulation of the principle of independent development. I say “final formulation” because this speech of his was really the decisive evolution of the apartheid idea, an idea which has always been supported by this side of the House over the years—an idea to which new momentum was given by the speech made by Dr. Verwoerd in 1959. How dynamically, how glowingly has this formula for freedom, as I want to call it, developed in this country over the past eight years! Let us look at the external developments. Everybody who has had to live with criticism from abroad and anxiety about South Africa, can testify to the moral strength implied in this idea, in this formula for independent development within the framework of a divided political structure. If this idea of separate freedom had not developed so dramatically since 1959, where would we have been in South Africa to-day, particularly if we look at the position immediately across the borders of our country? Over the past eight years the development of this policy formula has given South Africa new hope in this the greatest crisis in its existence. Internally it was this formula which taught a black majority in South Africa not to aim at the whole, but also to seek their freedom within the framework of a divided political structure, a divided South Africa. In fact, this idea was so dynamic that it is without fear that we can say to one another in South African politics to-day that the break-through in respect of the concept embraced in this formula has virtually resulted in a complete break-through as far as our political reasoning is concerned.

The most effective proof of this is the present United Party Opposition—as a matter of fact, all opposition in this country—and the calcified, coelacanth situation in which they find themselves in South Africa to-day. That is a result of the dynamic content of this formula. What is this Opposition at present other than a group of frightened people, people who are still half-heartedly adhering to a sort of, let me call it, “one nation theory” within the framework of undivided politics? They are people who, in the second half of the 20th century, believe in white supremacy within the framework of an undivided political structure, people who do not have the courage to make new history in this country of ours. Sir, what is the basis of this formula, what is it that has given it this break-through I mentioned to you? I want to mention to you four basic principles in our political reasoning. The first is the admission, the realization in our present political reasoning, particularly over the past eight years, that no artificial bounds may be set to Bantu self-government; or to put it differently, that the urge towards liberty is fundamental with the black majority in South Africa. Nobody can reason that away. In addition one also has this truth, namely that any formula for regulating this inherent political urge in an undivided political structure, is not worth the paper on which it is written. It is this truth which is giving the Opposition that content which it does in fact have in South African politics at present. There is a second one, namely the realization that in the long run a white minority cannot continue to rule over a large black majority in the same homeland. Nobody can dispute that to-day. There is a third one, namely the acceptance of the truth that in our “new world”, in this new period which has dawned, the white man cannot remain the master simply because he has a white skin. The master-servant relationship is becoming something of the past. I want to repeat that in respect of these three points of reasoning a total break-through has been made in our South African politics. My hon. friends on that side are not opposing this basic stand. They are exceptionally quiet.

My fourth statement I want to motivate in greater detail, and I should like to formulate it as follows: The economic structure of the white man’s homeland cannot be built on foreign black labour for ever. I want to put it from a different angle: Within the borders of its homeland a black majority in South Africa cannot develop fully into a nation in its own right, if it has to live mainly on income from labour which thousands of its people have to sell permanently to the white man’s homeland. Practically speaking: We in this country cannot continue with this massive absorption of foreign black labourers in our industrial economy. We, the Whites, are a nation in our own right to-day. We are no longer a minority of settlers within the borders of our own country of residence. We have shaken off all forms of foreign domination. Even my hon. friends on the other side accept the new world in which we are living to-day. But now, what about our dependence upon this black labour which we have on our hands? Our present dilemma which has resulted from prosperity and development is, in as far as it means increasing dependence upon black labour, a terrible one indeed! But in this regard, too, we should say to one another, without mincing words, that this is the dilemma of all of us, that this is also the dilemma of my United Party friends who have white skins! To this country with all of its people—Whites (Nationalists and United Party supporters), Coloureds, Bantu, to all of us—this dilemma is a challenge which calls for new devotion and inspiration and ingenuity as regards the creation of new labour patterns such as this fine country of ours has never known in the past. I say that this is the dilemma of all of us! The United Party cannot dissociate itself from this challenge. The United Party always holds itself up as being the party which works for and strives after lasting relaxation of the tension in our race relations. Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the Part Appropriation we had such a clear example here; the hon. member for Yeoville rose and pleaded dramatically for relaxing the tension in race relations, and practically in the same breath hon. members on that side rejoiced over increasing economic integration.

It is not a question of “rejoicing”.

Increasing economic integration will constantly intensify the white/black contrast within the framework of undivided politics in South Africa. The arguments raised by my hon. friends fall away entirely. Mr. Speaker, white islands in a sea of black workers is a perfect recipe for future danger and tension in this country. That would spell doom for all of us, Nationalists as well as United Party supporters. Viewed from this angle, the United Party is at present the party of the greatest evil South African politics has ever known. It does not seek liberation through division; it seeks to base the future of the white man in South Africa on the foreign labour of other nations for all times. If the United Party thinks that this Government and that this unique political party of which I am a member will allow the principle of greater labour self-sufficiency in the white man’s homeland to be invalidated by practical difficulties and economic laws, it will be mistaken in South African politics for the umpteenth time. This party prefers even “economic impossibilities” to be undertaken rather than an entire civilization and a nation being led to their downfall under the pretext of their being saved.

To summarize: Labour self-sufficiency as the fourth fundamental principle of our policy formula for independent development, has at present acquired new urgency for all of us, and that includes my hon. friends on the other side. At no stage in our history has the challenge, on the one hand, to lead the Bantu towards full independence in their own homelands and, on the other hand, to create a finer white homeland with dramatic effort, been issued to all of us so clearly.

In respect of the practical implementation of greater labour self-sufficiency in the white man’s homeland, I would humbly make a few suggestions. In the first place, I want to plead here for the establishment of what I should call a permanent labour advisory board. If we plan our economic future to-day, the formula has already been developed over the past few years for making use of a permanent economic advisory board, a board in which South Africa’s best brains are being concentrated, a board which from time to time furnishes this Government with advice and counsel in respect of shaping our economic future. The same is happening in numerous other spheres. For instance, I am thinking of the development of our water schemes in which our best brains are at present being enlisted to serve the Government with advice. Why can we not have such a permanent labour advisory board in which our best brains are being enlisted for the purpose of continually creating and formulating new labour patterns in this country?

There is a second suggestion I want to make, and that is a plea for an imaginative campaign against wasting labour in our homeland. This is a topic on which one can talk all day, because a current accurate analysis shows that there is no other Western country in which quite as much labour is being wasted as is in fact the case in South Africa. I want to mention this little example: A few days ago the hon. member for Vasco and I were about to drive back to Cape Town after visiting a certain factory in Bellville South, and as we got into the car it caught our attention that two strong, well-built, middle-aged Coloureds were engaged in watering the lawn in front of the factory in question, both holding onto the front part of a garden hose and pressing their thumbs into the opening. This caught our attention and we talked about it. From there we drove into town and in the space of that short distance of eight to nine miles we counted 28 adult, male, strong Coloureds who were watering gardens and lawns by means of hoses. Mr. Speaker, if you were to make a survey to-day to determine the extent to which labour is being wasted in the Cape Peninsula, you will be amazed.

There is a third suggestion which I want to make and for which I want to plead here. I want to do so by way of a question: Would I be too idealistic if in my plea for greater labour self-sufficiency in the white man’s homeland, I advocated what I want to call living symbols purposefully created by us in order to grip the imagination of our people? I am asking this question in consequence of an article which I have here in my hand and which appeared in one of our newspapers last year. To me this was one of the most imaginative articles to appear in South Africa last year. It was written by a well-known Jewish author, Henry Katziw. It appeared in Diepte-Beeld on 28th August, 1966, under the heading: “That first town will save our children”. In his article this author says that we in South Africa need symbols; that we need something which will once again attract the attention of our people which will stimulate us into making history in this country; that we should not merely be negative by saying, in the first instance, that we should withdraw the Bantu from the Western Cape, but, on the other hand, that we should also positively make history by building new white towns, white communities. Sir, he does that on the basis of an example he mentions here, and I should like to read it to you. Also note the fine language in which it is written (translation)—

I want to repeat this question. Do we not need an image in South Africa? Has the time not arrived for us to engage in purposefully making new history for the white man in his own homeland? Arising from this article by this Jewish author, I want to ask whether we should not start creating new white towns in this country, a town of white people where there will not even be Coloured servants to look after our children, a town which contains all the dramatic elements, which will attract attention and give new value through white family labour … [Interjections.] Sir, if the hon. member wants to make a good contribution to this debate, he should stand in the lobby. I am talking about a town which will serve as a model of our white future in this country, a town or towns in which some of our key industries, such as our munition factories, will purposefully, yes, even in conflict with the economic laws, be concentrated; a town or towns with nuclear power-stations where South Africa’s best brains will be assembled; a town with a new way of life, with new labour patterns, by means of which we shall show the world that we are not necessarily dependent upon the labour of other nations for our survival; a town or towns which may be the starting-point for making new history in the white man’s homeland.

I readily want to admit that the hon. member made his speech in beautiful language. He is my representative, and I enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Moorreesburg. I do not want to find too much fault with what he said in the final part of his speech when he expressed his own ideas which I take it are not Government policy. They were rather interesting ideas which one could discuss but I merely want to refer to one aspect of the matter, and that is that as regards the case of Israel and Ben-Gurion mentioned hy him, there is one small difference between the policy proposed by him and that proposed by Ben-Gurion. Ben-Gurion set the example of resigning as a Member of Parliament and to go and work hard in the desert himself. I do not know whether the hon. member also intends doing something similar by the end of this session or even before that time.

Do you not think that Parliamentary work is hard work?

I am merely mentioning the fact that the hon. member for Moorreesburg said that Ben-Gurion set his. people an example by working hard and‘ making a success of it. Of course, in the case of Israel it is not at all a parallel one, and I think the hon. member is aware of that fact. A whole variety of other factors were involved. I am merely referring to the fact that Ben-Gurion was prepared to set the example himself and did merely not tell his people that they should go and work as farm labourers. I shall wait and see what members of the Nationalist Party will set that example. I shall wait and see whether the hon. members for Moorreesburg and Piketberg will do so. The hon. member for Piketberg is the person who said the other day that boys should once again learn how to work with a pick and shovel on farms. I was born and grew up in a region which those two hon. members represent in this House and I remember the days—and it is not so long ago that circumstances changed —when one found people who made a living by working as white labourers in the Sandveld just beyond Piketberg at a level of existence no hon. member of this House will advocate to-day. At the present time there are still small houses in the constituency of a former Prime Minister, Piketberg, which one cannot enter without bending down because the doorways are so low.

It is no disgrace to live in a small house.

No, it is no disgrace, but it should not be the aim of this. Government to let people live in such houses once more. This is the difference between that side and this side of the House. The hon. member for Moorreesburg said—I do not believe he meant it; perhaps it was a slip— that it should be their policy to do the economic impossible. [Interjections.] Where does he get such nonsense from? Have you ever before in your life, Sir, heard a Governmentsaying that it was going to implement a “pie in the sky” policy even though it was an economic impossibility to do so? [Interjections.] I can tell the hon. member that there is an ideal place for such a township in his constituency. He will not have to make his experiments in a desert. He can go to Gouda in his own constituency. Gouda has been designated by the Government as the place where future economic development in the Western Province must take place. There is water at Gouda and there is a great deal of State-owned land with the result that no land need to be purchased. I now want to ask him to say that the. Government will announce that it will start this experiment of a white township at Gouda. Gouda has everything. It is even situated next to a railway line. Let the Government now translate words into action. What is the worth of all these discussions and long articles by jounalists which do not mean anything when one determines their value; it is merely “pie in the sky”. Why can we not be realistic? Why can we not speak of economic possibilities? [Interjection.] That hon. member does not know anything. He has never been anything else but a political organizer throughout his life. I say we are discussing the survival of the South African nation and I believe that there are sufficient Nationalists inside and outside this Chamber who are in real earnest as far as South Africa is concerned and who will not allow themselves to be flustered by political organizers. Things are now going too far. They have already gone too far. There is nothing wrong with being a political organizer That is no disgrace; there must be people like that and I, too, was a good organizer and so was the hon. the Deputy Minister

Conroy said you were the worst organizer in the United Party. [Laughter.]

Let me revert to the motion itself. The hon. member said in his speech that the United Party still believed in everlasting supremacy over the Native, something which the Nationalist Party discarded many years ago. Surely that is not true. With the advent of apartheid the basis of apartheid, according to the organizers of the Nationalist Party, was that the White man should remain master of the Coloured and the Native. Do I have to furnish proof of that statement? I can read the speeches. That was the whole idea that was created at that time and for that reason people did not want to accept apartheid. [Interjections.] Why does the hon. the Minister want to say that that was not the case? Surely it was. The idea of segregation, of separation, of separate development, is not something new which is peculiar to this Government only. When Cecil Rhodes came along with his Glen Grey Act the idea of separate development had already been accepted. Read all the speeches of General Smuts. His entire idea about the coloured question was one of separate development. He made many speeches on that subject but strangely enough he arrived at this one thing every time and that was that he said that although one commission after another had been appointed to investigate the coloured question and although they had come forward time and time again with separate development, there was one aspect to which they never referred and that was the political aspect. Just read those speeches. I say that where South Africa as a nation—Government and Opposition—believes in social separation and in the traditional pattern of separation and parallel development, this concept: of separate freedoms for which the Nationalist Party now stands is a new idea. The late Dr. Malan said shortly before his death that the ideal might be complete apartheid but that it certainly was not possible. This I think is the economic impossibility to which the hon. member for Moorreesburg referred. I think we must now start being realistic. We cannot come forward every time with a motto, as we came forward with the motto of apartheid, which at that time meant something completely different to what it means to-day, and then try to build a policy around that motto. It is not fair to do so and it is dangerous to do so, because once one starts with a matter of principle, such as the hon. member evidently believes in—will the hon. member please listen and correct me if I am wrong, because I do not want to put words in his mouth. I ask the hon. member what he understood under a separate political structure, whether he meant a separate political state, and he said that that was correct. [Interjections.]

For the black man.

Yes, but what about the brown man and the white man? The hon. members how have a solution for the black man but not for the brown man. We are now dealing with the principle of a divided political structure. Surely one must be consequential. I say that is the “pie in the sky” policy. The hon. member cannot speak of a divided political structure and of outside persons who may work here and then not be prepared to assist in forcing his Government to say where those separate states are going to be. How can one speak about separate states if one does not know where they are going to be?

You are the most stupid voter in my constituency.

I am very unfortunate to have the most stupid Member of Parliament. The hon. member must not blame me for that. These are also his other stupidities. We have the position at present that the Government wants to give the Bantu separate states, but it is not prepared to tell where those states will be situated.

But we do tell.

No, you will not tell. The Minister has never done so. I shall move and amendment at a later stage and I shall ask the hon. the Minister to tell us where the boundaries of those states will be. Will he do so? He has been “zipped” once more. The hon. member spoke of “zip” before, and here one has a “zip”, a large one. The Minister does not have the courage of his convictions to announce that he will appoint a commission which will report within a period of two years only where those boundaries will be.

No commission is required.

The hon. the Minister says that no commission is required because he does not want to and cannot do anything. He knows that he has a “pie in the sky” policy. He shall not do so for the Griquas, nor for the Coloureds, nor for the Indians, nor for the Malays, and if we do not look out, he is not even going to do so for the white man. Now the Coloureds may remain. What nonsense do we have in the offing now? What is happening? These people come along with grand ideas, with mottoes, and then they try to build a pattern around that motto, instead of indicating a direction and saying that that is their policy. They use fine-sounding words here which are leading the white man further along the road to destruction. I notice that the hon. the Minister of Finance is present, Sir. I am glad that he is present and I am now going to ask him a question. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he believes the nonsense that we must not utilize black labour from other states?

Who said that?

The hon. member for Moorreesburg. It is your policy that the number of Bantu should be removed at a rate of 5 per cent per annum. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister something. Seeing that the black states have not even been established, because they are not in existence yet—they are purely “pie in the sky” stories—I shall not make my question applicable to them. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether he will get up in this House and say that because it is the policy of the Government, Natives from Tanzania, Kenya and from independent states outside our borders will be forbidden to come and work in our gold mines any longer.

No.

That is the Minister’s reply.

He was speaking of permanent labourers.

There has never been any question of permanent labourers. [Interjections.] According to this Government there are no permanent Bantu labourers in the Cape Province. There are, but the Government says there are no such labourers. What the Minister of Finance has just said makes him a supporter of the United Party. Why does he not sit on our side of this House? He has to vote with us. This side will move an amendment before long and the Minister of Finance will have to vote with us if he meant what he has just said.

That statement has never been made.

There are no statements to make. The question is this: Does the hon. member for Moorreesburg believe that sooner or later an end has to be made to recruiting citizens from other states to come and work in our economy? Does the hon. member believe what he said, yes or no? Once again he has been “zipped”. Does the hon. member believe what he said? Now he does not want to say anything. It is very dangerous to read what other people have written to one. Do you know, Sir, I know of people who sign documents which they have not even read. I say to the hon. member: “Do not read things you do not understand. That is an extremely dangerous thing to do.” The hon. the Minister of Finance at least, is a sensible person because he says that he does not believe that kind of nonsense. Nor do I. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, he and I are sensible.

Nor should one speak of things one does not understand.

Before the hon. the Minister entered the Chamber that was my very theme. I do not believe that anybody has any objection to these people having a degree of self-government in their own areas.

How much?

As much as is necessary for them to govern themselves but never so much that they will be able to take over the entire country.

But in that case we too should never have become an independent country here. In that case South Africa should really have remained a colony.

Now the hon. the Minister is talking nonsense. I would expect something like that from the hon. member for Moorreesburg, but not from a Minister of the Cabinet. This Parliament is competent to govern the entire South Africa and to see to it that justice will be done to every section of the population. We have been doing so throughout the years. The hon. member for Moorreesburg was right with regard to departing from the old pattern under which this Parliament governed the entire South Africa, as Dr. Verwoerd said, the hon. member for Moorreesburg was right. The late Dr. Verwoerd said what the hon. member also said here, but to that he added that that was as a result of pressure which was exercised from abroad, and that too the hon. member nearly quoted to me. We must not be frightened to death of the kind of advice and of the large mouths of Africa. The Government must carry on and must do its Christian duty, as it has been doing throughout the years, and all will be well. The Government must not become frightened. Fear has never solved any problems. How can a country be governed on the basis of man’s two weakest emotions, namely fear and hate? The Government must believe in its own future, in the justice of its policy. The Government must not say here that it is even going to ask for economic impossibilities if necessary.

Do you believe in white supremacy?

I believe that the white man in this country must keep the reins in his hands for many years to come.

For how many years?

For as long as that is necessary for the safety of this country and all its citizens.

Why not for all time?

Circumstances change. Why should you tell me that your policy would hold good for all time? Are you aware of the fact that virtually each of the last three wars started about a so-called oppressed minority? Surely you cannot suppose that all Natives should be removed from the country? [Interjections.] Now the hon. the Minister wants to tell me that his policy will bring everlasting peace. What nonsense! Who is this Minister to know what will happen in 100 years’ time? In the course of 100 years their policy changes from supremacy to apartheid until it is now equality. [Interjections.] Surely we cannot carry on in this way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move the following amendment. I want to ask that all the words after “That” be omitted and that certain other words be inserted. The amendment will read as follows—

1. (a) persisting in the illusion that its policy of independent development within a divided political framework is realistic; and
2. (b) ignoring the fact that the races in South Africa need one another economically, and in order to test its bona fides …

—that is the Government’s bona fides—

… demands that it—

something which the Minister said he would do.

Me?

Yes, you said that you would do so. I want to know where my “homeland” is. You are engaged in things which I do not understand, and for that reason I want you to indicate the boundaries so that I may know where my “homeland” is. I proceed—

Mr. Speaker, to me it is a real privilege to move this amendment, because I think that affords the Government an opportunity, if it is in earnest, if it does not have a “pie in the sky” policy, to come forward for the first time and say: “This is our blueprint, this is what we are going to do.” They must not time and time again use these fine-sounding phrases and words which do not mean anything so that in the long run no one knows where he is standing. Let the Government say: “This is our policy; we are no longer going to allow Coloureds and Bantu as labourers in the white homelands; we do not want to make our economy dependent on them. This is what we propose; this is what will replace them.” Let them say: “We no longer want a divided state. This is the white man’s land and it is going to remain the white man’s land.” Then we shall know where we are standing. In a previous debate an hon. member spoke so movingly—there were actually tears in my eyes —and said that he stood for the heritage of our fathers remaining the heritage of our children. And now?

Mr. Speaker, before this House adjourned this afternoon the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education paid me a fine compliment for which I am very grateful. He said that I should bring the debate down to the normal standard, namely his standard and apparently also mine. I am sorry that I was too high-brow and set too high a standard. I am quite prepared to bring the discussion to a lower level. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do so now. I shall have to lower the debate considerably and I do not have the time to do so now, but I should like to repeat a few of the points I raised before.

In the first place we of the United Party believe that South Africa must be governed as a single political unit. We believe that South Africa must be governed in such a way that there is a home for all. We believe that leadership will have to remain in the hands of the Whites for many years. I just want to mention what I was told by an economist who came from West Germany to Tanzania not so long ago. Apparently he went there to ascertain in what way the economy of Tanzania could be improved to the advantage of all the citizens of Tanzania. When I spoke to him he told me a very interesting thing. I asked him what the possibilities were of Tanzania becoming a powerful country. He replied: “There is little possibility of that, because they do not have the capacity to make use of the labour which they have at their disposal.” This Government must take care that future generations will not blame it for not having utilized the labour at its disposal for the sake of political ideologies. If this Government proceeds with training the Coloured, the Bantu, the Griqua, the Malay, the Indian as well as the white man, to do his work to the maximum advantage of the entire South Africa—instead of following “pie in the sky” policies, as I called them—it will be rendering a service, but as long as we continue to allow some political organizers to come forward with all kinds of fantasies and with all kinds of mottoes which may win elections, but which will lose South Africa for the white man, as long as they continue to choose a motto and then want to build a policy around that motto, we shall remain on the road which leads to destruction. For that reason I move as an amendment—

1. (a) persisting in the illusion that its policy of independent development within a divided political framework is realistic; and
2. (b) ignoring the fact that the races in South Africa need one another economically,

and, in order to test is bona fides, demands that it—

1. (i) now clearly indicate the boundaries of the so-called white homelands; and
2. (ii) formulate a practical policy for assuring a stable and efficient labour force to meet the demands of industrial and agricultural development, which will enable South Africa to achieve and maintain higher standards of living for all our people”.

Do with the Native whatever you wish, if you do not want to listen to us. Do with the Coloured whatever you wish, if you do not wish to indicate his boundaries to him. Do with the Malay whatever you wish; do with the Griqua whatever you wish—but tell the white man now where his territory is.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members would have noticed that I signed the amendment while I was reading it. No one will be able to tell me at a later stage that I sign documents which I have not read.

Mr. Speaker, it pleases me that this House saw to-day that the hon. member for Sea Point, after all his years of Parliamentary service, had not yet learned how to move an amendment to a motion. I do not want to reply to the tirade of the hon. member. I am pleased that there was an interval which made it possible for a different atmosphere to be created. The only advice I have for the hon. member, and I think that that will be the only thing which will help the hon. member, is to place a “jack” under the level on which he conducts a political debate. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Moorreesburg on his fine exposition and the competent way in which he brought this important matter to the attention of this House.

My contribution to this debate is going to take the form of emphasizing the place which the Coloured population is to occupy within this pattern. If we speak of independent development, this concept means something different to the Coloured than to the Bantu. To the Bantu separate development means that that is linked up with an independent, own homeland, away from the Whites and the other races. To the Coloured it means parallel development within the boundaries of the: white part of South Africa.

There are persons who dream about a possible political division also in respect of the Coloured population and who have visions of a separate homeland being created within South Africa at some time in the future for the Coloured, where it will be possible for him to develop to complete political independence. This is a fine ideal because if it were at all practicable it would have brought about an ideal situation. To me, however, it is an’ unrealistic idea. Therefore, when we speak of greater labour independence within the homeland of the white man, it is important that we stress the share and the aspect of Coloured labour because the Coloured will always share the homeland of the white man and will always be part of it. What is more, when we speak of labour independence in the homeland of the white man, it means that the hold of black labour will be shaken off to an increasing extent. In a large part of South Africa Coloured labour is the obvious alternative labour.

I want to begin by agreeing with the farmers of the Western Cape and the employers of Coloured manual labour that the efficiency of Coloured labour has not exactly improved during recent years, in any event not anything near the ratio of what has been done, inter alia, in relation to the socio-economic uplifting of the masses. It is indeed a fact that there has been a considerable improvement in the case of the productivity of the labour of a large number of Coloureds employed in commerce, in industry and in the services in respect of the better type of work which is done by the better type of Coloured. Taken as a whole, we have therefore made some progress, but it remains irrefutably true that Coloured labour at present has major defects and shortcomings such as workshyness, irresponsibility, a lack of discipline, the low moral, standards of the masses, the terrible evil of addiction to liquor, immorality and a lack of leaders in various fields. These are all factors which assist in making Coloured labour what it is to-day. I wonder if all hon. members in this House realize how poor and inferior that labour is? To many people who have to manage with this labour each day, it is a real trial to do so. Now it is so that all these things are connected with the level of development of the Coloured. For that reason the State has quite rightly tried to tackle this matter at the root by means of the State’s socio-economic development programme for Coloureds. However, there are many obstacles in the way. There are many things which hamper and obstruct the good work which is being done by the Department of Coloured Affairs and which neutralize and in many respects undo this socio-economic uplifting. In the short time at my disposal I want to spotlight one matter in particular. That is the negative, retarding effect which the presence of the Bantu in the Western Cape has on uplifting the Coloured.

The co-habitation of Bantu and Coloured in the Western Cape creates an enormous social problem amongst the Coloureds. In the Western Cape, and here in the Peninsula in particular, 20,000 illegitimate Coloured children are born each year. The fathers of many of them are Bantu. Before our very eyes we see that the population of young Coloureds are growing up and becoming blacker and blacker. We must remember that every brown Bantu is a person who is permanently settled in the homeland of the white man. He remains here with his mother. This process is changing the identity of the Coloured and is placing the Coloured’s claim of being an appendage of a Western group in jeopardy.

These blacker Coloureds which are being produced are the people who, according to the United Party’s policy, have to be placed on the Common Voters’ Roll with the Whites. They are the people who, according to the United Party’s policy, must sit with us in the House of Assembly. I make the statement today that the presence of the Bantu in the Western Cape had undeniably been instrumental in creating the pattern of Coloured labour which gives rise to so many problems for us. As a result of the unlimited, readily obtainable, cheap Bantu labour which had been available throughout the years before this Government imposed restrictions thereon, the Coloureds have been left to their own devices and as workers have been left neglected by the wayside for many years. What Dr. Eiselen said as long ago as 1955 when he addressed S.A.B.R.A. is indeed true. (Translation)—

The systematic removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape is very closely related to all our attempts to make the Coloured more prepared to work and to increase the productivity of his labour. The attempts of the Department of Bantu Administration have already met with success. I just want to mention one example, because I do not have much time. I want to read to you a report which appeared in Die Burger of 17th February. The heading reads (translation): “Removal of Bantu from the Western Cape. Dairy industry being reorganized.” The report reads as follows (translation)—

There you have it. I just want to mention one small point. Perhaps I do agree with the hon. member for Sea Point much to my regret. A matter which must receive the attention of the Minister’s Department is the thousands of Bantu who are moving about in the Western Cape illegally. Our problem is not in the first instance the Bantu who work. The stumbling block is the thousands of Bantu who are here illegally, who do not have permits to be here and who are moving about amongst us. However, I want to pay a compliment to-day to the Department and to the Minister. I think that the attempts they are making deserve our whole-hearted support. I regret that I am not able to pay this compliment to the labour advisory committees, too, which were appointed a few years ago with a great deal of enthusiasm in an attempt to bring about the systematic replacement of Bantu labour by Coloured labour. I think most of these committees did not come up to expectations. I think we shall have to devise other means of tackling this matter more effectively. This brings me to the task of the Department of Coloured Affairs in this connection. The legislation Parliament is considering at present gives us the impression that the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Minister are deeply conscious of what an enormous task is resting on their shoulders in this regard to do everything possible at this very time for exploiting the potential of Coloured labour to its maximum. A great deal is already being done. We cannot get away from that. I cannot mention everything but in passing I should like to refer to the agricultural gymnasium at Kromme Rhee, to the technical college in Bellville South, to the directorate of Coloured labour, that co-operates very closely with the labour bureaux, to bring Coloured workseekers into closer contact with employers. I may mention the Department’s full-time liaison officer who attends meetings of the inter-departmental labour advisory committee of the Orange River Scheme in order to ensure that all available Coloured labour will be utilized. But because we shall never have one super plan for solving this problem in respect of Coloured labour, and because we shall be compelled as a matter of necessity to work on various projects and undertakings, even in various spheres, I should like to make a few suggestions to-day which to my mind ought to be considered.

The first is the question of the Coloured’s preparedness for work. In this regard I want to advocate the compulsory registration of Coloured unemployed. For this we do not need legislation. The only thing I am asking is for an existing Act to be applied by this Government in order to help solve this problem. I am referring to the Registration for Employment Act, Act No. 34 of 1945. Section 4 (1) of that Act provides that if a worker has been unemployed for more than one week, he has to register within seven days thereafter. If he fails to register or to comply with all the requirements in connection with registration, he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. Sir, if this Act was necessary in 1945, how much the more so to-day? This Act has the advantage that the Minister may make it applicable in respect of any area and in respect of any category of worker within any particular area. I want to ask that we should apply this Act and should not be afraid to do so in order to solve this problem with which we are faced. In order to be able to administer the Act effectively, there will have to be a drastic increase in the number of registration bureaux so that they may be within easier reach for the Coloured for registration purposes and so that the Coloured work-seeker will also be able to stay in closer contact with the bureau.

The second matter I want to mention by way of a question is this: Should the Government not involve and use the Coloured Persons Council to a larger extent to make their own people more prepared for work and to cause them to play a more positive role in the field of labour? Or should we not think in the direction indicated by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, namely to include some of the best Coloured brains in a full-time Coloured labour advisory board? Let it be the full-time task of those people to rack their brains about the problems of their own people and to serve the Government with advice as to what should be done in various fields. Sir, we have to teach the Coloured leaders that they will be obliged to accept responsibility in respect of their own people to a larger degree. This is one of the cardinal deficiencies in the uplifting of the Coloured. We should teach them that fewer of them should waste their time with politicking; that they should play less on political fields; that they should not try so much to be hangers-on of the Whites and that they should devote themselves more to working amongst their own people.

Sir, I have to leave the matter at that, because my time is getting very limited. I still want to mention a few other points. The fourth point I want to mention is Coloured education. We have to adapt Coloured education more drastically to the needs of the Coloured people themselves. It has become possible to do so now that Coloured education has been separated from white education. The Department of Coloured Affairs is already moving in that direction. In the Peninsula we already have five multi-stream high-schools for Coloureds at present where provision is made for ordinary academic education but where special attention is also being given to more practical education. I advocate a larger degree of differentiation in Coloured education. My plea is for a two-stream system to be followed eventually in every high-school for Coloureds in the Cape Province. Too much time and money is being wasted on Coloured children who derive no benefit from the ordinary school syllabus.

The fifth point I want to mention is Coloured housing. Coloured housing, like Bantu housing, should be directly connected with Coloured labour. The congregation of Coloureds in the cities have resulted in major advantages to the industries. The State in point of fact is subsidizing large industries in the form of Coloured labour and, on the other hand, the State is left with the housing problem. I do not think that it is unfair to ask that industries, as regards their Coloured labour, should bear a rightful share of this burden. On the other hand, we must encourage the farmers to provide better housing for their workers on their farms. But then we must also prohibit divisional councils to levy taxes on such housing.

In the fifth place I want to make a general plea for a drastic change in the labour pattern in the rural areas and that an investigation should be instituted into, inter alia, the tot system. I do not have the opportunity to elaborate on these matters, but I will contend myself with quoting from The Cape Times of the 18th instant, in which an article by Professor S. P. Cilliers of the University of Stellenbosch was published. He states—

My time has expired but I should like to refer in brief to the question of semi-skilled labour. As a result of mechanization and automation the demand for unskilled manual labour has, relatively speaking, decreased, but the demand for semi-skilled labour has increased. I also believe that the Coloured should be trained to have a share in this labour where white labour is no longer able to meet in this demand altogether at present; we simply do not have a sufficient number of Whites to do so. The very problem we are facing as regards Coloured labour which we have at our disposal to-day, is that we expect too much of badly equipped human material in that we want our ordinary labourers to do the work of semi-skilled persons.

The other matter which I want to mention is the pensions which are being paid to Coloureds. Sir, too many Coloureds are loafing about because they live on the pensions and the allowances and the maintenance allowances for illegitimate children which their family and their next-of-kin receive. I think this is a matter which requires the urgent attention of the Department.

The hon. member for Parow, with all the experience that he has had working in the Western Province, really shows a shameful lack of knowledge of the real problems facing the Coloured community who formed the basis of his speech here this afternoon, a speech which bears no relation whatsoever to the motion which is on the Order Paper and which we are expected to discuss. Sir, I have asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs and his predecessor what has happened to the reports of the committees which were appointed to look into all these matters along the Orange River and on the western coast of this country in regard to a multiplicity of subjects affecting Coloured persons. One of them was whether or not it was feasible and possible to do away with Bantu labour in the Western Province. My information is that it is impossible to do without Bantu labour in the Western Province, but we are unable to get any information from the hon. the Minister. I do not want to confine myself this afternoon to Coloured affairs because we are having this debate for the benefit of the Bantu Mnisters, all three of whom are here, the Minister himself plus his two deputies. But before I leave Coloured affairs, I should like to say this to the hon. member. He has experience of “plaasvolk”, but he seems to be ignorant of the real problems that the Coloured people face. There are many thousands of Coloured people of good standing and intellect, people as good as you and I, Sir.

I did not deny that.

The whole speech revolved around the fact that there are footloose and useless Coloured persons to be found on the farms in the Western Province. I say to you, Sir, that the position of the Coloured people in the Western Province is the fruit of the Government’s policy towards the Coloured people. This is what we are reaping. These are the people who have been pushed away, who have been classified and got rid of. These are the people we have excluded from trade unions and applied job reservation to. These are the people we herd into little tinpot houses with no ceilings or floors or inside doors or any water to wash with. These are the products. iHon. members say that the leaders of the Coloured people should take an interest in them and that education is wasted on half the Coloured children, but let me tell you, Sir, that half the Coloured children never get into schools because the schools are not available. But I will say this for the present Minister of Coloured Affairs, that he is making an attempt.

This motion before us is rather a strange one. The Afrikaans version says “die verdeelde staatstruktuur beklemtoon”. The English version says “the divided political structure”. A “staatstruktuur” means a separate state, if I know any Afrikaans at all, and a state is not entirely a political structure. A state consists of economic factors and industrial factors and a multiplicity of other factors. It is not only politics, although the white state of which we hear so much is bedevilled exclusively with politics by the hon. members opposite. We hear about the white man’s homeland and we hear the glib speech of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. We have lived for 300 years in the closest association with the Bantu and the Coloured people, and this country was built up on the sweat and the toil of the black man and the Coloured man, and every man who lived within the borders of the country as it exists to-day. The Minister of Finance laughed this morning at the suggestion that we are going to reverse the order and get all these Blacks out and do all the work through Whites. The hon. member for Parow himself said there were insufficient Whites to do the work even of the Coloureds, let alone the millions of Bantu. I think the time has come when we should look at these separate states and see the trend of Government thinking, because we are fast approaching a state not only of socialist tendencies and trends but also of communist trends. Only recently I had occasion to cross swords with the Minister of Mines in regard to diamonds. I will not go into that now, except to say this, that diamonds in Coloured areas must go to the State, that is, to the Coloured Development Corporation. Then there is the fishing quota for Coloured persons, which must also go to that Corporation.

Order! That is irrelevant.

I am dealing with an independent state for the Coloured people. A Bill has been published in which liquor …

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling.

The motion is that there should be this separate political structure and these separate states, but what is the kind of state we are buildng? The hon. member for Parow says that the Coloured people will have a state parallel with that of the Whites. I am trying to demonstrate that such a state must of necessity be within the white homeland. I am trying to demonstrate that in three basic principles such a state already departs from our own white principles, and these are capital and labour. Now we find ourselves dealing with the Bantu. The Minister of Bantu Administration has set his heart and mind, in terms of Government policy, upon developing the Bantu homelands. Why does he not get on with it? We have been at it for 20 years. We have only heard of one, the Transkei. The Bantu I want to talk about are these. When the Bantu are steadily moved and are returned to their homelands, there will be millions of Bantu left in the urban areas who will be there by right, by virtue of their birth and by virtue of the fact that they do not even know what their homelands look like. What are the Minister’s intentions in regard to those people? The whole trend of the Government’s policy with regard to these separate states is to have South Africa in a state where all Bantu and black labour shall be migrant labour. We have heard what has happened from the hon. member for Parow, that Bantu men come into the Western Province and consort with Coloured women. I put it to you, Sir, that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has never, nor has any member of he Government from the Prime Minister down, said one word about the millions of Bantu who are at present on the perimeters of the urban areas and have been there for many years and will remain there, and who have their wives with them and whose families grow up there, for whom houses and schools are being built. I want to know how this independent state for the Bantu is going to work within the living body of the mythical white South Africa.

I want to go further and I want to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Sea Point. When we speak of self-determination, when we start to consider the Griqua as a self-determined group, it is a well-known fact that the “Bastervolk” in Gordonia regard themselves as a people on their own, and they consider that they at least should be allowed to have an area of their own and to develop in the direction of self-determination. We find the case where Indians are in a class by themselves and Malays have been classified as Coloureds. When and where do the Malays get self-determination on their own? So I say frankly to the Government, without any fear of contradiction from any reasonable person, that the path upon which the Government is set can never and will never produce the solution and will never be the answer to any of the problems that face us. There are no real problems.

The hon. member who introduced the motion could only make one suggestion, and that was that we should have an advisory committee. Heaven knows we have had enough of these. I believe that the time has come when we should treat everybody within our borders as a person and use his ability to the best advantage and provide the educational opportunities and make him a person who is proud to be associated with the Western way of life of which we say we are so proud, and to be part and parcel of us, as he should be, because these are the men who do the work. There is nothing that is insoluble, and I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he applied his brains, limited though he may be as far as that is concerned, we could find a suitable solution. But what the Government is doing is that they are running away from the problem because there are two schools of thought on that side. There are those speakers on behalf of the Government on the platteland whose line is, “Dit sal nooit gebeur nie; moenie bekommerd wees nie”, but when it comes to talking for outside consumption we have this mythical plan. If we were to ask, as I ask, why they do not accelerate the plan, why they do not get on with it, they will tell us that there are many difficulties. Of course, the biggest difficulty of all is that it cannot be done. Another difficulty is that there is not the money for it. The Minister of Finance is the one who will tell us that for that type of ideological nonsense no funds are available. But, Sir, I do not have to tell you that even to-day local authorities throughout the country have had all their capital works cut. All the opportunities that were being offered by local authorities for improvement of the lot of people within their municipal boundaries have been cut. Yet hon. members can get up here to-day and enunciate a theory and a thesis that we can separate a group of people who I think at the present moment are something to the order of 10 million or 11 million, from the 16 million all told—these were the 1960 figures. The exact figure is 10,928,000 Bantu. They theorize that we can take 3,471,000 Bantu in urban areas and move all of them—this is on that basis of 5 per cent compound interest in reverse—together with 7,457,000 Bantu in the rural areas. They say that we can reverse the order and make the country not only white in appearance but also white as far as activity is concerned. Mr. Speaker, the whole history of this country indicates, proves and shows that the whole of our development from the diamond mines’ earliest days to the gold mines of to-day depends entirely on black labour. So does industry, so does commerce, so does trade. I should like the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to answer me this question. He has made through his Deputy a studied statement to the effect that he intends to reduce the number of Bantu in the Western Cape. Well, I want to ask the Minister why he does not start at Vereeniging, or at Bellville, because those are the places where he should start. Let us show by example and precept that we are sincere. Why does he not start in Bloemfontein? These are the places at which to start. Because then people will believe in the sincerity of it all. But let me go further. Why does the Minister not start on all the farms and get all those Bantu away? I am very anxious, and will be most interested to see the swarms of white youths going to work on the mealie lands of the Free State. These are the things I am curious about. A new industry was opened to-day near Postmasburg and one finds that there are 900 Bantu there who are going to do the work and about 150-odd Whites who are going to supervise them. I think the Whites are going to see to it that the other boys do not walk off with the material!

I really and sincerely feel that it is time that these things were put in their correct perspective. The Government is not sincere. The Ministers speak with their tongues in their cheeks.

Shame.

They know as well as I do—and so do the “shame” gentlemen on the other side too—that this policy is absolutely incapable of application. They cannot carry it out. We have been waiting for 20 years, since they took over power, for them to implement this policy.

Why then are you squealing?

I am not squealing; I am suggesting that we face simple facts. The hon. members of the Government have been in those benches for 20 years, and they have had all the power in the world at their disposal. There are to-day more Bantu in the urban areas and on the platteland than ever before, and, strangely enough, fewer Whites on the platteland than ever before.

The supporters of the United Party have moved away.

I do not think it is the “Sappe” who have moved, Mr. Speaker, but the “ryk Nationaliste het dorp toe gegaan”. Because it is pleasant and convenient in Parliament—it is air-conditioned. Let us stop trifling with this matter and let us realize that we had one classic example only recently where a well-known industrialist is going to advise Basutoland. My contention is that unless the Government makes up its mind to educate and train the Bantu who must of necessity remain in our midst, we are going to find most serious competition commercially from industries established in Basutoland and Botswana, by financial interests from South Africa who will use South African money to finance these companies and corporations in these Bantu states and compete with us on a basis of cheaply produced goods. Many of us have seen a parallel in the way Japanese have been treated in this country for many years.

Didn’t we deal with that question effectively?

No, I do not think that you have. You just declared them White the same as you declared the Arabs White.

The motion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg sounds nice. It will look nice in print. It will look impressive in the Department of Information’s hand-out pamphlet. But when one speaks to the mining people of South Africa, to the business people and the industrialists, they will say that it is a farce, inapplicable, and absolutely incapable of being applied. Therefore I support the amendment moved by the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, in the limited time at my disposal I cannot do justice to everything which has been said and in addition deal properly with the fundamental question which is under discussion. In the absence of the hon. member for Sea Point who moved the amendment I am not going to take the trouble of replying to the things he said here. I shall nevertheless deal with his amendment later on.

I want to begin by thanking the mover of this motion for raising a matter here to-day which is not merely a very real one but also one which is fundamental to our way of life and to the future of all the various races in South Africa. It is a matter which lends itself to much dicussion in South Africa—and which ought to be discussed at length—and it is a problem on which individuals in particular in South Africa must do a lot of work. I want to congratulate the hon. member on his very fine statement of the fundamental matter here.

I now want to refer briefly to the amendment. I think I would be spending more than enough time on the hon. member for Sea Point if I merely dealt with his amendment, because it is now the property of this House. In his amendment the hon. member refers to the so-called illusion from which we are suffering in regard to independent development within a political framework of divided state structure. It is not illusion. It is a perfectly natural approach to acknowledge the separateness of races and help them to develop separately towards their spiritual destination. But the illusion which does exist is the illusion of the Opposition, the illusion of those people who imagine, as the hon. member in fact intimated here this afternoon, that the Bantu people, the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa can be left indefinitely with unfulfilled political aspirations. That is an illusion. The people who awake from that illusion will awake from it too late. In the second place the hon. member mentioned in his amendment the development in the economic field; as he puts it, the races need one another economically. That the Whites and all the various Bantu peoples and Indians and Coloureds need one another and must be complementary towards one another economically is not something which we deny. Of course we admit it. All our legislations and measures make provision for that, but we do not accept that standpoint on the same basis of the hon. member who views this matter on an integrationary basis. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I have given that hon. member so many sermons in regard to integration here and he still does not want to understand it. I know what Votes are going to be dealt with this year and I shall then deal with this matter again. I cannot discuss it now. I must now discuss what I have to discuss and not what the hon. member wants discussed. [Interjections.] I shall be glad if the racket on that side of the House would cease. In addition the hon. member asked for clarity in respect of the boundaries of the “so-called” White homelands. I am filled with sadness and despair when a White man, such as the hon. member speaks of our homeland as a “so-called” homeland. South Africa’s White area is the homeland of that hon. member and of myself and of all White persons. Its boundaries are known to all in South Africa. There is not a single White person or Black person in South Africa at this moment who does not know where the boundaries between Whites and Blacks in South Africa are situated. Everybody knows where it is. There are laws which control the position in so far as those boundaries have to be changed in view of the requirements of peoples and localities. There are laws which control those aspects. There is no arbitrariness, disorder or uncertainty in that regard except the arbitrariness and disorder of the politically contaminated who want to make political capital out of the situation. That is the only uncertainty which there is.

Business suspended at 3.10 p.m. and resumed at 3.35 p.m.

I hope that the occasion will soon arise that the hon. member for Karoo, who went through this unfortunate experience, may once again be present in this House to put the points to which I would like to reply. Whether I shall have an opportunity of replying to him then, I do not know—we hope so, but in any case we express the hope that he will soon be back again to put his case here. I shall therefore not react to what he said.

As regards the hon. member for Parow who also spoke, I want to thank him for emphasizing the right approach, i.e. that what this matter is concerned with, more specifically in regard to the policy in the Western Cape is the replacement of the Bantu by Coloureds, which thus implies the prerequisite that the Coloureds should be made to be prepared for labour, suitable for labour and above all, willing to do labour, which is a tremendous task, not only as far as the Coloureds are concerned but also as far as the other non-White nations are concerned, and I am afraid also as far as many of our Whites are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the accent in this motion really falls on the labout independence aspect. It is true that mention is being made of a divided state structure and of independent development. As worded the motion therefore has wide implications and we must not allow ourselves to be led astray by talking about all kinds of minor matters. Unfortunately that is what the hon. member for Sea Point did. He put me in mind of the contrast between those people who stand on the hillcrests to admire the horizon and those who sit on an anthill looking for the holes in it. That is what the hon. member did. He could not discern the wide horizons of an important matter, but busied himself with trivialities. It is absolutely essential that we view the question of labour independence in relation to these other two concepts which were mentioned in the motion, because independent development is the prerequisite in terms of our policy and is the perfectly natural way in which development will take place for each separate nation which we have in South Africa. Nothing can better stimulate this desire for independence in a nation or even in an individual than dignified labour. That is why it is so essential that labour be seen with reference to our state development as well as all the other developments. When our concept of separate development in the political field became known in our social life years ago it was not at all as well thought out as it is to-day, and that is why it happened that in those early times, a division of labour between the various nations in our country, when compared with the situation in the mother countries where we originated from. That is why our task is so much more difficult now to undo something which had gone wrong for so many years. This revision of the concepts, the customs and the habits of our people to which we have grown accustomed over a period of almost two centuries is extremely essential, and it is a very real problem which faces us to-day. But let us understand, and this is something the hon. member for Sea Point should also try and understand, that this revision is a re-arrangement which cannot take place all at once. We are considering our institutions and customs, but the last thing we want to do is to disrupt our economy by taking injudicious and overhasty steps. It is a gradual task which all of us are aware of, but the hon. member for Sea Point does not realize that. He is too inclined to want to challenge us and pretend that the things which we set up as our goals must be achieved immediately. The State as such is expressly concerned wih this concept of labour independence, because any state finds its highest degree of development in the measure in which it can be completely independent; and to achieve that hard work will have to be done, not only for constitutional independence. Work will also have to be done in the economic, agricultural, educational and all other fields. The State has very great duties in this respect, also as far as labour independence is concerned. But it is not only the State, the citizenry and the individual also have duties. The State must see to it that there is a livelihood. It must see to it that there is work for its citizens. It is for that reason that we, under this system of ours, must accept and see to it that the different peoples which we have must have certain assurances, especially those who have their own territories. There must be certain provisions where they receive priority. It is for that reason that we are stating so clearly that as far as the territory of a nation is concerned, the members of that nation receive top priority in that territory, and that the members of the neighbouring nation take secondary place. That is why we say that in the Bantu areas of South Africa the Bantu receive first consideration. They must receive priority. But as far as they are unable to do certain or most of that work themselves, the Whites must do it for them in a temporary supplementary capacity. For what period of time this will be a temporary arrangement we cannot predict. The same also applies in the White homeland, the word which the hon. member for Sea Point is so afraid of. [Interjections.] The same therefore applies to the Coloured and the Indians which are at present sharing the White homeland with the Whites. In their own context and in their own areas which have been allocated to them in the common homeland, there must also be priorities for them. That is why it is so important that in an area such as the Western Cape, where one has other groups as well— Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu—one must act according to the natural state of affairs; and the natural state of affairs in the Western Cape, as far as labour is concerned, is that preference should be given to the Coloureds over the Bantu. But it must not be a theoretical preference which we merely set down in documents; it must be something which we try to apply daily. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Sea Point states that he has no objection to that. Then he must help us to implement it. That is the entire philosophy on which is based the practice which the Deputy Minister must implement and which the Opposition is deriding so much, i.e. that here in the Western Cape preference must be given to the Whites and to the Coloureds as far as labour is concerned, and that the Bantu must receive secondary consideration only, and that it should be implemented in practice. It is we who have to administer these matters, who must see to it that it is done carefully and judiciously. The State has the duty of arranging and classifying these things, but the citizens also have their claims and their rights, and whether the citizenry are Coloureds or Whites, they also have their duty which is to prepare themselves and make themselves suitable for labour. That is not always so easy, because many of them are unwilling to do so. That is why such a great task rests on the State. It is definitely something in regard to which the organizations of the various races, and in particular the churches, can render a tremendous service. To prepare an individual member of a race, whether it is a White, a Coloured or a Bantu, for labour and to make him suitable for and skilled in labour, is something in which the family must be concerned, as well as the school, the university and society with all its associations and churches. The church, and particularly the mission church, have a tremendous task in this connection. I think hon. members will agree with me that one of the first decrees issued to man was when he was told that he would earn his bread with the sweat of his brow. It has been part of our religion over all these centuries that man has been ordered —not condemned—to do work. That is why this task also rests on our churches, to which I want to make an earnest appeal to undertake a great task, i.e. to make those who are White, as well as those who are not White, aware of the fact that they must be prepared for and proficient in labour. It is a tremendous educational task. We also have a cultural task. We have many cultural organizations, both English and Afrikaans. But in the present time, and with a view to the requirements of the future, we have no greater cultural task than making our people, White as well as non-White, Afrikaans as well as English-speaking, aware of and prepared to do labour. We have no greater task. I am not afraid of being accused or attacked, by anybody whosoever, when I as an Afrikaans-speaking person say that this task, creating labour consciousness, is a greater cultural task to-day than maintaining the Afrikaans language. I say that candidly, and as loud as I can. The other task, maintaining our language, must not be neglected, but this is a greater task because there are far less people in South Africa who are aware of the need for being prepared to do labour which every White person in South Africa must exhibit, then they are aware of their duty to maintain their own language.

We must wake up in time. When I say “we” I am talking about the white people. We must wake up in time and see what is going on in South Africa. We must see to it that that illusion which the hon. member for Sea Point, and perhaps many of his own people too, suffers, i.e. to think that the present state of affairs or the state of affairs which have prevailed for the past half century will continue indefinitely in South Africa, will no longer be tenable. The time is coming, and it is coming soon, whether or not it is as a result of the application of the policy of separate development on this side of the House, when the Whites in South Africa will be forced to do more of their own work, particularly their personal work, themselves. I have experienced this in my life already, and I am certain that many of the hon. members who are with me in this House to-day, have also experienced it in their lives. What must be done to achieve that, was stated by the hon. member for Moorreesburg and the hon. member for Parow. Unfortunately we have had very little positive support from the hon. member on the opposite side. What we must do is, first and foremost, to implant and imprint this aim which I spoke about in the consciousness and mind of every person in South Africa—amongst the Whites, amongst the various Bantu peoples, amongst the Coloureds and the Indians—i.e. that we must gird ourselves and be prepared to work. This awareness must be implanted in the family, it must be implanted in the school, in the church and in society, as I said a moment ago. In the second place we must be prepared to implement that aim in practice. If we did so, we would have a very good future, and that is the purpose of this motion. It is a motion which goes to the heart of all these matters and that is why it is very important that it has been raised here to-day.

Various lines of thought have been expressed here. What is undoubtedly necessary, as I have said, is a revision of our thinking and our ideas on the subject and we shall have to rationalize in our industries, in our organizations and in our managerial methods; we shall have to introduce standardization and new methods in all kinds of ways.

Allow me, Sir, to mention a rather simple example which came to me a moment ago. I am going to take Pretoria as an example because that is the city in which I live, it is practically the city in which I grew up. The same conditions prevail in Cape Town as well; I have already experienced it here. At this present moment, at four o’clock in the afternoon on a Friday, hon. members can go to any of our major cities and see one bicycle after another being ridden out to the white residential areas. These bicycles have on their carriers a packet from the chemist, a parcel from the shop, a parcel from the butcher, a parcel from a music shop and from a book-shop. At this moment 15 to 20 of them are probably riding out in the direction of Wynberg or Bishopscourt or Parow, and in Pretoria to Arcadia, Hatfield and Brooklyn. Twenty of them in a row, all of them coming from one small block between four streets in the city centre. Riding those bicycles out to the residential areas are Bantu. Now, Sir, with a little rationalization, there could be a bureau, if need be a municipal one, where everyone could deposit their packets before four o’clock. Then a small vehicle, with a driver and manned by three Bantu perhaps, to make deliveries, could transport those goods and deliver them to all those places. That means that it would not be necessary for the remaining 15 Bantu to transport packages on their bicycles. That is a single example which I can give here.

They would be without work. What are they going to do?

Now the hon. member asks me what they are going to do. They are going to do other work. That will definitely not cause any unemployment. After all we cannot tackle the one thing suddenly without tackling the others which go with it. There must—and here I agree with the thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg—be proper labour planning in South Africa. There are far too many people who are always lying about on the lookout in all kinds of places to see whether they can get work there, and they are more inclined to live off other people than they are to work. There must be much better labour planning in order to distribute our people properly throughout the country. I have said previously in this House that there is too much misunderstanding, amongst the Bantu for example. They think that because they were born in a certain town, they must, come hell or high water, remain in that town in order to acquire the rights in terms of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, irrespective of whether there is work for them there or not or whether the work carries an insufficient remuneration. They think they must remain there. Those kind of ideas are outdated. I include all these things when I say that there must be better rationalization in regard to these matters. There must be better labour planning so that the people’s requirements, the regional needs, the incidence of labour in various places and all these things can be taken properly into consideration m order to be able to make our labour arrangements accordingly. Those are all things for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude with the idea that I mentioned just now, i.e. that although the State has a task, many—perhaps most—of these things can be implemented if the citizenry, through their organizations, tackle these things themselves. Many of these things can be accomplished without there having to be any compulsion from above forced upon people. That is why I conclude with the thought that this realization should penetrate to our public, it should be brought home to our public, so that it will not always be necessary for the State to dictate from above what is right. We know what the signs of the times are and we must prepare the public for the developments which will follow.

Mr. Speaker, having just listened to the hon. the Minister, I am afraid that even now I am less convinced than ever that there is anything in this policy of the Government. The Minister was very careful to avoid the political issue altogether; instead he concentrated on the question of labour. I must say that for once—possibly the first, and quite likely the last time—I agree with the Minister, as far as the inculcation of a desire to work in the people is concerned. Of course that should be done—it is a laudable idea. Everybody and every nation should have that desire. But whilst people have that desire, that drive in them, surely there must be appropriate opportunities provided for them. Rationalization is all very well, but then we must see to it that everybody in South Africa gets a square deal.

To me this motion before us is another typical example of the chauvinistic approach of this Government. I am quite sure that it is because of that attitude that the Government were put in power and are on that side of the House. And that is why they are still there. Because, Sir, that is a natural consequence of something which has a great appeal to so very many people.

We are talking in this motion about a homeland. Where is this homeland? I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been raised time and time again, but we all know that all authorities have proved, time and time again, that nowhere at any stage will South Africa—or, as they wish to call it, the white homeland—have anything but a majority of Bantu people within its borders. What is more, if the present trend continues we shall not only have a majority of Bantu people, but very soon also a majority of Coloured people. Mr. Speaker, I do believe the greatest sin any government can commit, is to mislead the people of its country. That is exactly what this Government is doing. They are dangling this carrot of a white homeland, their apartheid, which is going to provide a white homeland for the people before them. It is true that the people fall for it and that is why they have supported the Government. The sin of it all is that well-knowing that it cannot be carried out, they continue dangling the carrot. But, Sir, the people are not donkeys and the carrot will have no significance to them. The tide is going to turn. You can bluff some of the people, as we know, but you cannot bluff all the people all the time. The day of reckoning is coming and this Government will pay the penalty. It will be sooner than they think.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked where this homeland is, because despite all the measures which the Government has taken, everywhere in South Africa we still have a greater number of Bantu. No, there is no homeland. There is certainly no homeland for the Coloureds. And of course it was mentioned here to-day that there is no question of a homeland for them, although the hon. the Minister just referred to certain little areas, I presume towns and villages, which will be considered to be the homeland of the coloured people. Are they possibly then in this political framework, which we are discussing, considering developing the Coloureds on the lines of the United Party’s race federation policy? Indeed I do believe so, because it was only last year in this very House that an hon. member on that side, when he was asked: “What is your ultimate aim for the coloured people?” used our very phraseology which you will find in our booklet: “We will develop the Coloureds so that they have control of all those things with which they are intimately connected.” The very words in our booklet. But they do not, of course, go the whole hog. They cut it short, they carry out again a policy of “baasskap” over the coloured people, because they say: “So far you will develop and no further.” What is the final political outlet then of the coloured people? No, they have certainly not told us anything at all in that connection to-day. The coloured people are limited in their development, although even in the Financial Mail of this week the hon. the Prime Minister’s three pillars are very prominently displayed and he says: “The third one—separate opportunities.” They are supposed to be separate and equal opportunities. Where is the equality for the coloured people in political development?

When we come to this white homeland in relation to the Bantu people, the hon. the Minister started by saying: “Now we all know what the Bantu homelands are, in consequence of which we know what the white homeland is.” I grant him that. Just at this present moment we know which is the Bantu area and therefore which is a Bantu homeland. But is that the homeland as it is going to be? We know the late Prime Minister’s announcement of this policy that the present borders are not final. We know that even at this present moment the Ciskei is altering in its size every day. I want to ask the hon. the Minister where does the Ciskei start and where does it end, because we have statements such as the hon. the Deputy Minister made at the Nationalist Party congress, namely that 100,000 morgen of land must still be purchased from the white people of the Ciskei to replace 100,000 morgen that will be taken from the Bantu. Where is that going to be? Can we know in any way whatsoever what our position is in the Ciskei? In reply to a question last year when I asked him which were the black spots in the Ciskei, he gave them, and when I asked him what was going to happen to them, he said:

As far as we were concerned in the Ciskei and anywhere, for that matter, consolidation meant the removal of a black spot to join it to an existing black area. Therefore if you are not going to remove it when you consolidate it, surely you are going to buy out the white area until it is consolidated with the Bantu homeland? Can hon. members imagine for one moment the insecurity, the uncertainty that develops as a result of that attitude? And yet the hon. the Deputy Minister was the one to say in this House that we caused the suspicion. I ask you, Sir, when he is the very one who creates that suspicion through his very actions because we do not know where we are. When they have established a homeland, they also create their own artificial one. How are we to know where this homeland is going to start and end? We have a typical example—Mdantsane, near East London. Only a little while ago it was a white area. To-day it is part of the Bantu homeland. Then the hon. the Minister says to us that we know which the Bantu homelands are; the laws are there, I deny it categorically. I do not know, nobody does and least of all does he know where the Bantu homelands are. Certainly he does not know where it is all going to end.

To add to all this confusion, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration said that he was going to reduce the number of Bantu people within the white homelands. This is the usual contradiction in terms, because ver the years it has been the Nationalist Party policy to reduce the Bantu in the white homelands and to replace them by contract labour. Now we find that the reverse is taking place. The contract labour is being reduced, because the Government cannot touch the permanent Bantu in the white homelands. This was the fact. They quoted time and again to us that contract labour is the labour we want for white South Africa. After all, they would be like the Italians in Europe. They would go across the border and work and then go back. That was the whole basis of the Bantustan policy, so that they could get political rights in the homelands whilst working in white South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the mover of the motion mentioned that the economic structure must not be built on Bantu labour. But it has been proved time and again that this is the fact already. This knot cannot be untied. I do not think that the hon. the Minister has any right at all to say this afternoon that he will and that he can untie this knot. It is the very concept on which the border industrial development has been built, namely the fact that we rely on them and they rely on us.

In connection with this moving of the industries to border areas, it is, of course, as we have pointed out time and again a great advantage to have decentralization and in as much as it falls within our interpretation of decentralization of industries, we agree with it. But I do want to point out that the hon. the Minister is making a great mistake if he thinks that the effect is going to be earth-shattering, because if we take a place like Johannesburg alone, which has 344,000 Bantu working people, only 16 per cent of those people are actually employed in industry. Therefore the number that is affected, is far less than he considers.

I conclude by saying that I have not heard this afternoon any argument that convinced me that the framework of a different political approach towards independent states works in any way. I am quite sure that the only solution for this country is what we have moved in the amendment, and I support it accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, we have now had a full and fruitful discussion on this very important topic, and with leave of the House I should like to withdraw my motion.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, our Parliament is a sovereign body and we are proud of that sovereignty. We know that our Acts and statutes take precedence over the ordinances and the byelaws of local bodies. It is quite clear and we proved it over the years that we are very reluctant to interfere with the powers that these subordinate bodies have.

At the same time, we as a Parliament cannot evade our responsibilities if these delegated powers are on occasion flagrantly mismanaged. My submission is that over the past years, a state of affairs has arisen in regard to wastage and maladministration in one particular province, in the Transvaal, which, at last, has called for the Parliament of South Africa to take notice of what is going on.

Therefore I wish to move—

I stand here as a believer in the rights of the provinces. Those rights, which involve control over hospitals, roads and education, have very seldom been abused. For this we have to thank the provincial administrations in the past. I am quite prepared to thank the provincial administrations of different political character, but when a ward continually fails to look after himself, we, as the guardians, must warn that ward to start looking after his own affairs in a better way. We are morally bound by our Constitution to enquire into what is going on.

We as a sovereign Parliament have a more than cursory interest in what is happening in the provinces. After all, every year we vote close on R170 million on Revenue Account and R40 million on Loan Account for them. I might add that the Transvaal gets the largest share of this amount. We, as a Parliament, and not the provinces pay the salary of R9,000 a year of the Administrators. It is my intention to prove that a large portion of the money in the Transvaal which we give as a Parliament is being mismanaged. These facts have been brought to light by the excellent work of a team of United Party members of the Provincial Council in Transvaal, ably led by two people whose names I should mention: First of all Mr. Harry Schwarz, the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal Provincial Council; and secondly Major Opperman, who, together with Mr. Schwarz, formed the members of the United Party on their Sessional Committee on Public Accounts.

Hon. members will ask me to mention instances of this alleged mismanagement. I shall give them instances this afternoon. I know that in all provinces there are, on occasion, cases of irregularities and unnecessary losses, but what has been happening in the Transvaal is quite unique. It is a case of growing irregularities on a scale which has never been seen or known in the history of South Africa in any provincial administration. It is a subject which has been continuing and increasing year after year. Now I shall give the House a few instances. My time is limited. I cannot mention all I should like to.

I want to deal, first of all, with the chaotic state of affairs in regard to the payment of teachers’ salaries in the Transvaal. The facts are almost unbelievable. In 1964 the Provincial Auditor had already warned of a serious lack of internal supervision and control in the section charged with the paying out of teachers’ salaries. But despite that warning, a year later the position was found not to have improved, but to have worsened. In last year’s Auditor’s Report the position was actually as bad as it has ever been, if not the worst. A test audit was made of only 10 per cent of relevant cases and it revealed over- and underpayments to the teachers of R 16.000. So what was the true position? The position was ten times worse—R 160,000 worth of discrepancies in the payment of teachers’ salaries in one single year.

How bad the position is in the Transvaal will be seen from these facts admitted by the Transvaal Provincial Administration and guiltily admitted by them too. In the Transvaal there are 17,000 teachers. Do you know how many of them were paid wrongly last year? 4,160 were paid wrongly. It is an unheard of thing. It is a grotesque situation. There has not been something like that in this country ever in our history. Do you know how many mistakes were found? 14,000 were found. This is in the inner temple of Christian national education. No wonder there is the dissatisfaction in the teachers’ profession. A temporary overpayment does not benefit a teacher. He has to pay back that money. His personal budgeting is upset. Yes, Sir, there are 17,000 teachers and there were 14,000 mistakes in salary payments in one year.

There is one ugly characteristic in regard to all this. I see the hon. the Minister of Transport smiling. I wonder how many cases of discrepancies and mistakes there are in the Railways.

Move a motion. I shall welcome it.

Good! I am quite satisfied that it will be much less. One ugly characteristic of the position in the Transvaal is the contemptuous indifference with which charges are dismissed. When the accounting officer of the Department of Education was asked what he was doing about these irregularities in payments of teachers’ salaries in his Department, his reply to the Provincial Auditor was contemptuous. He said: “I disclaim responsibility for the large number of errors and am by no means concerned about the quality of the work done and the control measures applied.” I am quite sure that he was speaking on behalf of the Exco member in charge of education in the Transvaal Provincial Council. Yes, Sir, I believe, and I am not using too strong a word, that we, the taxpayers of South Africa, through this mismanagement are actually being robbed by the Transvaal Provincial Administration and they are by no means concerned about what is happening. If there had only been signs that they were actively trying, and with fair results, to improve the position, it would not have been necessary to ask here this afternoon for a judicial inquiry.

The culminating point of this disgraceful and callous indifference, we saw this year— last month indeed—in regard to teachers’ salaries. Our M.P.C. for Von Brandis, Major Opperman, noticed a strange discrepancy in the budget figures presented to the provincial council; he investigated the figures. He asked the Administrator what was wrong. The Administrator looked and said: “Yes, there may be something wrong; I will find out.” You know, Sir, what they found out? They found out that last month, in January, 3,352 teachers in the Transvaal had been underpaid illegally to the extent of R24,000. As a result of the good work done by the United Party in the provincial council, those moneys were included in the next salary cheques, but what a new year it must have been for those 3,352 teachers who had been underpaid through stupidity.

Do you know, Sir, that last year the Budget of the Transvaal Provincial Council, through mistakes, was out by R3¾ million? Does the hon. the Minister know that they failed at one stage to make provision for the salaries of 752 teachers? Sir, I am particularly perturbed about this atrocious budgeting because it affects Parliament. Our Minister of Finance bases his allocations to the provinces partly on the estimates presented to him by the Transvaal province. If these estimates are out by millions, we might be paying millions too much or millions too little to the Transvaal and who are the sufferers? The taxpayers of this country. Sir, this is a grotesquely abnormal situation that must be remedied.

Surely the Executive Committee must resign.

They should. Another unsatisfactory feature of the Transvaal educational system is the highly unsatisfactory state of affairs in regard to the repayment of bursaries and loans to students who were studying to become teachers. Many of these youngsters break their contracts to become teachers after they have had loans and then refuse to pay back the money. The amount owing by this group who did not become teachers jumped from R900,000 in 1964 to R 1,100,000 in 1965. I admit that not all these moneys were in arrears, but it was found out that 1,103 of these young men and women who had been educated at the expense of the taxpayers of South Africa and who had entered into contracts to become teachers, did not become teachers, and they are not repaying their loans as they should be doing. They either pay nothing or they send in an occasional small token amount. Sir, the position is not improving because whereas the amount outstanding the year before last was R 1,100,000, last year it was R1,400,000. It is not surprising that the Provincial Auditor finds it necessary to say: “It is clear that efforts will have to continue to be made to collect these debts.”

I now come to the next important department of the Transvaal Provincial Council, the hospitals. In Johannesburg there are two skeletons of steel and concrete which bear mute and sad testimony to the inefficiency and maladministration of the Transvaal Provincial Administration; there are the Johannesburg General Hospital and the Auckland Park Memorial Hospital, the J. G. Strijdom Hospital. They form a stark contrast to the efficiency of the municipal projects which surround them. Let us look at the sad story of these hospitals. The Auckland Park Hospital appeared on the Estimates of 1956. There was a slow start, and five years later, in 1961, little more than the nurses’ quarters had been finished. Do you know, Sir, that those nurses’ quarters have never yet been used? They were started in 1956, finished in 1961 and have never been used as nurses’ quarters. In 1961 the site of the Auckland Park Hospital was handed over to a contractor for completion of the work by 1964 and then the fun started really. Work went on for almost a year and then it was suddenly stopped from above. The plans were found to be hopelessly and utterly outdated for a hospital. The Nationalist administration had promised that they would appoint a committee to supervise the building and so forth, but that committee was not appointed until eight months later. It should have been appointed eight months earlier to see what was going on at the Auckland Park Hospital.

Sir, the Pandora’s box opened and what flew out was not a pretty sight. The Provincial Architect himself—not the United Party— warned in writing: “It is my considered opinion that this hospital cannot function in its present form.” Sir, they discovered that five or six years after they had started building it. The Director of Hospitals had to admit: “The hospital is not modern and there are deficiencies.” The Provincial Architect said in his second letter: “A great deal of money will be required to rectify the defects and to make the necessary amendments to put this hospital into a state in which it will function.” Then a certain file was suddenly missing. Do you know, Sir, what happened to that file? The file bore the word “Hospital”, but it was not filed under the word “Hospital”; it was filed under the word “Latipsoh”. The hon. the Minister will see that that is the word “Hospital” written backwards. When they did discover that file, they found it under the letter “1” instead of under the letter “h”, and they found in it a letter giving instructions to the contractor, “please start work on the Johannesburg General Hospital before the 3rd of February”, in other words, before the provincial election. That letter was in the “Latipsoh” file. The result of the delay was that the contractor had to be paid an extra R1½ million. Sir, there is nothing “verkramp” about that side of the House when it comes to spending the taxpayers’ money. “Let the people pay” —that is their motto in the Transvaal to-day.

Then I come to a second steel skeleton in their cupboard, the Johannesburg General Hospital itself. Sir, what a sorry state of “stop” and “go” is revealed in regard to that building, of vacillation, of altered plans and ever increasing costs. Thirteen years ago grandiose schemes were mooted for expanding the Johannesburg General Hospital. First of all it was to have an additional building of about 15 storeys, then of 22 storeys and then of 28 storeys, with incidentally a maternity home right at the top in spite of the fact that doctors objected to it. At any rate, since these wonderful plans were announced, the estimates of costs have grown. The original estimates provided for an expenditure of R3 million. To-day those estimates have grown to R24 million; an eightfold increase. Not even the Minister of Railways has ever equalled that record. Sir, what do we see after 13 years? You see a huge hole in the ground where they have been digging the basement and you see three unfinished storeys. It has taken 13 years to build the outlines, the skeleton, of three storeys. At the rate it will take more than 120 years to build the whole of the Johannesburg General Hospital and it will probably be opened in the Jubilee Year …

Or in 1978.

… or in 1978 when all the Native labour in Johannesburg, in terms of the policy of apartheid, will have gone back to the reserves. Sir, I said a minute ago that this building, the Johannesburg General Hospital, has been standing forlorn all these years. Perhaps that is the wrong word because there have been two periods of intense activity. I have already mentioned the first one when written instructions came to the contractor to say that he must please start building before the provincial elections …

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:, And they stopped immediately after the election.

After the election everything died down, and now we suddenly discover that a couple of weeks ago there was again some activity at the Johannesburg General hospital; they are again building. I wonder why? Is there another election in the offing, and is it a pure coincidence that there is to be an election in Johannesburg next Wednesday? I do not know. Perhaps hon. members opposite can tell us.

In the limited time at my disposal I shall only mention the shocking story of the Pretoria Hospital in passing, where R24,000 is owed by two radiologists for the use of facilities at the hospital. I see the Minister looks horrified. I hope he knows about these things. R22.000 had to be paid by the Provincial Administration for admitted negligence in the treatment of patients; there was a shortfall of R85.000 in hospital inventories, and there was a failure to instal a proper system for the collection of hospital fees. There were seven cases of serious irregularity in large hospitals in one year.

I must make more than passing mention of the scandal about the linen banks. Does the Minister know what happened? In 1965 it was decided that all linen stocks for hospitals should be transferred to eight central linen banks spread out over the Transvaal from Pietersburg to Johannesburg and Pretoria. A couple of months later a horrified provincial auditor went to check on what was going on in these linen banks. He went, first of all, to the Pretoria linen bank and do you know what he found? He found first of all that all the linen had been transferred from that big area to this linen bank in Pretoria without counting how many pieces there were. But the auditor started counting, and this will shock you, Sir. It was found that in that one linen bank alone there was an estimated shortage to the value of R36,000 worth of linen. Never in the history of South Africa has such a thing happened. A few months later other reports came in from other linen banks—by then the total of unaccounted-for linen had risen to R58,000. The provincial auditor who reported did not mince his words. He wrote—

In other words, a lot of linen had disappeared. As the result of this, the auditor writes that the losses of linen after the establishment of the linen banks up to September, 1966, when there was no proper inventory or control, will never become known. Already they have admitted a loss of R60,000. How much more has been lost? Another R50,000? It will never be known and the taxpayer will pay this. An official was asked to comment on this system. He called it a “bastard” system.

I want to deal with the third major department of the Provincial Administration, and that is the Roads Department. Here I want to mention an instance which is almost without parallel in the history of our province. What happened was this. By 1962 it became apparent that certain strange things were happening in regard to the Heidelberg Provincial Road Unit. An inspector was sent out, but unaccountably the road unit was always warned beforehand that inspectors were coming. So, not strangely, these irregularities continued. Then an anonymous letter was written to the Provincial Auditor, and afterwards a letter was written by somebody in Heidelberg to the late Prime Minister, who was the Member of Parliament for Heidelberg. A cloak could no longer be drawn over what was going on and an investigation was started. The result was almost incredible. First of all it was found that State money, labour, machinery and property had been unlawfully appropriated. Secondly it was found that fruitless expenditure involving thousands of rands had been incurred, inter alia, through transport contractors being allowed to convey gravel over much longer distances than they should have done, as the result of which, I presume, they made a lot of money. But then this road unit really hit the jackpot. Listen to this, Sir. Without charging anybody a cent, without any permission at all from the Provincial Administration, this road unit completed a huge number of works for private individuals and private bodies, and even for some municipalities, quite illegally. The work included the building of no fewer than 26 dams on private properties for 25 farmers in the Heidelberg district. Surely this sort of thing deserves investigation? The farmers were delighted, I am sure, but I believe they have now been approached to repay that money. Work was also done without authority or payment for the Heidelberg Municipality and for the Municipalities of Balfour and Rensburg, and also for the N.G. Kerk. This must have been really a Christian national road unit! One private company borrowed the tar distributor of that road unit and built a lovely tarred road, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

I ask you, Sir, what is happening in the Transvaal Provincial Council? What are its Administrator and his Executive Committee, staunch Nationalists to a man, doing about it? I will tell you what they are not doing. There is a sessional committee, as I mentioned before, of the Transvaal Provincial Council, like the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and they were so shocked by this Heidelberg road unit scandal that they wrote to the Administrator saying that they recommend that he immediately appoint a commission to investigate the matter. Five weeks passed and then the Administrator and his Executive Committee wrote to the chairman of the sessional committee, a Nationalist-dominated body, stating that a committee of inquiry at that stage was undesirable and unnecessary—unnecessary, Sir, when 25 private dams had been built with the money of the taxpayer! But, of course, Big Brother has spoken and there will be no provincial commission of inquiry. [Interjection.] Meanwhile I believe the police have been investigating. Mention has been made of a judicial inquiry, but to-day in this House, the Minister of Justice said in reply to a question I put to him that there had been no judicial commission of inquiry into this matter.

Mr. Speaker, if I had the time my list of irregularities would be at least six times as long as this, but I do think that I have indicated the following. Firstly, there are serious irregularities on an unprecedented scale in the Transvaal Provincial Administration. Secondly, there has been wastage and maladministration out of proportion to what we have come to expect even from a Nationalist body. Thirdly, there is an astonishing and stupefying lack of internal control and supervision in matters such as teachers’ salaries, repayment of loans, hospital fees, linen banks, road projects and stock accounts. Fourthly, these irregularities and maladministration and wastage have tended to become progressively worse over the past five years. Fifthly, in too many cases there has been a shocking indifference to public protest and attempts to remedy the position have been carried out with reluctance and little effect. Sixthly, these irregularities are beyond all comparison with slight irregularities on a smaller scale in other provinces. They are as the beam to the splinter, as the deluge to the rivulet. Seventhly, it shows that the Transvaal Nationalist Administration cannot be trusted, without the gravest anxiety and reservations on the part of Parliament, to run the richest province of the Republic. I do not even trust them with running the monkey-house in the Pretoria Zoo. And, eighthly and finally, it has been proved that this whole sorry mess cries to high heaven for an immediate judicial investigation. Let me tell the Transvaal Nationalist Administration and the Minister that the wonderful party they have been having in the Transvaal is over, and that their day of reckoning has now come.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen another one of those tremendous dust clouds in this House this afternoon.

Is what was said not true?

No, it is untrue. The hon. member did not furnish the true facts. As far as the teachers’ salaries are concerned, which the hon. member alleged they did not receive, that subject will be very thoroughly dealt with in this debate by another hon. member. Let me just say that not a single teacher, male or female, lost a cent.

The United Party rectified the matter.

No, the National Party did, because it is the governing party. In regard to the other matters which the hon. member mentioned in regard to the Heidelberg road camp, I want to say that the hon. member knows as well as anybody else in this House that the police are investigating the matter. Why does the hon. member want a commission appointed? Has he no confidence in our police force? We, the Nationalists, have full confidence in the police, and for that reason are not prepared to appoint a commission. All that the hon. member wants to do is to institute a witch hunt. Now he suddenly asks the question, “Why the building activities before the Provincial Council election?” Now I ask the hon. member this question: “Why the witch hunt here this afternoon in this House?” Is that side afraid of the Johannesburg City Council election which is being held on Wednesday? That side is afraid. But I want to tell the hon. members on the opposite side, “Alas, it is too late, you have already lost. That will be the outcome.” We know the hon. member for Orange Grove. For how many years has he not been sticking his nose into other people’s business? For how many years has he been leaving this House empty-handed time and again? Now the hon. member is afraid of hon. members on this side and that is why he has gone to seek pastures new where he knows that the people who have all the facts cannot reply to him. Or does the hon. member no longer have any confidence in his own people in the provincial council? Does the hon. member want to take over the leadership from Mr. Harry Schwarz? Does the hon. member aspire to leadership in the Transvaal? The hon. member is now the new leader for the Transvaal. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville now that he must look out because his leadership is in danger.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move the following amendment—

1. (a) its full confidence in the Transvaal Provincial Administration under the leadership of the Honourable the Administrator and the Executive Committee; and
2. (b) its appreciation for the capable and efficient manner in which the Administration conducts all the affairs entrusted to it in terms of the Constitution”.

The trouble with the hon. member for Orange Grove is this. He thinks Johannesburg is the Transvaal, and he thinks the boundaries of the Transvaal correspond to the municipal boundaries of Johannesburg. Do you know, Sir, why the hon. member is so worried? The reason is that the last bastion which the United Party conquered and which they think is still part of their kingdom is rapidly falling. The National Party is even carrying the challenge to the United Party there. I predict now, Sir, that after Wednesday the United Party will be confronted by a grave danger. It is true Johannesburg is a big city—the biggest city in the Republic of South Africa. But it must be borne in mind that it is not the only city in the Transvaal. The Transvaal is a big, a powerful and a dynamic province. It is blessed with mineral riches. The Province covers more than 110,000 square miles. It has a total population of more than 6 million souls, in other words, 40 per cent of the population of the country.

What happened to Brakpan’s Nationalist Party town council?

The town council is going to become Nationalist again on Wednesday. Hon. members are always clutching at straws. I repeat, Sir, the Transvaal does not consist only of Johannesburg. The Transvaal consists of three major cities, of which Johannesburg is one. That city has a population of 1½ million. Then there is Pretoria with a population of 681,000. [Interjections.] Good, I make the hon. member a present of 500,000. Germiston has 214,000 people. Then there are two large towns with more than 140,000 souls each, five towns with between 70,000 and 100,000 people and another six towns with between 34,000 and 74,000 inhabitants. Do you know what it is the hon. members of the Opposition cannot swallow, Sir? It is the fact that when 9th March, 1949, dawned, the National Party began to govern the Transvaal. What did we have at that time, after the United Party had governed the Transvaal for so many years? What was the situation in the sphere of hospital services?

There was free hospitalization.

Yes, you did introduce that, but it caused the greatest chaos in the Transvaal. The U.P. did introduce free hospital treatment, but did they supply the necessary number of beds? Was the necessary accommodation provided? Not at all. We are still to-day picking the bitter fruits of free hospital treatment which the U.P. introduced. The National Party is rectifying the matter step by step.

Let us take local government. How did the United Party control local authorities in those years? I am not going to enlarge very much on that. What was the result of their maladministration? The National Party had to remove the inhabitants of all the Bantu townships to various other places because the U.P. had mostly placed them within the White areas of our cities.

What chaos prevailed in the sphere of education! Our children and children of hon. members on the opposite side had to attend school under trees and in tents because the necessary facilities were not available. What a backlog were we not faced with in respect of our roads! And the Transvaal buildings, were they not in a most chaotic condition?

But since the National Party took over, we see the most spectacular development in the Transvaal, development which has taken place in the past 16 years. The National Party set the pace and created the climate for unprecedented confidence and an unknown prosperity in the Transvaal. The ever-increasing and tremendous amounts which were invested in buildings, roads, bridges and services, can be regarded as the most striking monument to the sensible way in which the National Party is governing the Transvaal. It has unshakable faith in the future. The National Party spent just as much capital in the Transvaal in 1964-’65 as the United Party had spent there over the ten preceding years. What was the situation in regard to accommodation for staff in Pretoria? Were the various departments not spread over the entire length and breadth of the city? The National Party then erected a beautiful new provincial building. There sits the hon. member for Parktown who opposed us so bitterly when that building was being erected. To-day that building is standing in Pretoria as a monument to us in the Transvaal. It is one of the most beautiful buildings in our country. And it is all thanks to the steps taken by the National Party.

Is a hospital not more important?

The hon. member grabs at such tiny straws and then kicks up a row here. That is what the hon. member does. He does not look at the fundamental, the fine, the major things. He does not appreciate the efficiency which is to be found in the Transvaal. You scavenge from one rubbish dump to another to see what you can pick up.

Order! The hon. member must refer to another hon. member as “hon. member” and not as “you”.

Hon member, Sir.

I want to ask the hon. members on the opposite side in what condition our schools were in the year 1949. What were conditions on the Witwatersrand and over the length and breadth of the Transvaal? In 1949 there were only 57 high schools in the Transvaal; last year there were 153. What was the situation on the East Rand? We have heard in another debate how the United Party neglected Natal. It is a pity that I could not participate in that debate, because I could also have told him how the United Party neglected the East Rand. Do you know that it was only in 1954 that every town on the East Rand had been given high schools? We did not neglect the English-speaking children, we saw to it that they had adequate accommodation. In that way, for example, we saw to it that hostel facilities were made available for English-speaking children in the Nigel area. Then hon. members of the Opposition come along to-day and launch this attack. Let us look at the state of affairs in regard to lower education. We find that here too adjustments are being made from time to time. We find that the number of pupils in secondary schools has increased from 66,656 in 1953 to 112,000 in 1966—in other words, an increase of 68 per cent. As far as the matriculation students are concerned, we find that they have increased from 3,666 in 1953, to 11,858 in 1966. We find that junior high schools and farm schools have been converted to full-fledged high schools and that the subject choice open to pupils has been widened. Secondary education is free to-day and the age limit for compulsory school attendance has been raised, suitable differentiated courses have been introduced to provide in an efficient way for the educational requirements of the pupils.

As far as the training of teachers is concerned we find that tremendous progress has been made. We find that the Transvaal Province is drawing to itself people in order to train them as teachers. The teachers training colleges in Transvaal stand to-day as a monument to us. There are altogether five of them and we are proud of them. The number of enrolments at these colleges in 1966 was 2,146 and for this year, i.e. 1967, it was 2,379. In addition the number of students produced annually by the teachers’ training colleges, increased from 488 in 1953 to 1,500 in 1966. We find that provincial authorities make available the necessary facilities to working teachers in order to enable them to convey knowledge to the child more successfully. We are proud of that. For that hon. member to come forward now and allege that the provincial councils of Transvaal and the Administrator of the Transvaal do not give the teachers their fair share as far as salaries is concerned, is far-reaching. The hon. member knows that there is no teacher, male or female, in the Transvaal who is underpaid. The hon. member ought also to know that it takes from three to four months to make salary adjustments. The moment those adjustments have been made, the teachers will receive their fair share.

When we come to the construction of roads, there is one thing of which the Transvaal as Province can be proud, and that is of its roads, particularly since the National Party came into power there. Hon. members know that before that time nothing happened. Since the National Party came into power there, we have been constructing a network of roads in the Transvaal of which we can be proud. If we look at the same time at the tremendous development in the field of farming, industry and mining then we realize what tremendous progress is taking place in the Transvaal. In the past 16 years 3,600 miles of road have been tarred, consisting of 525 miles of national roads … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Orange Grove will of course not listen to these figures because they hit him hard, right between the eyes. As I have said, 525 miles of national roads, 2,700 miles of provincial roads, and 400 miles of district roads which have been tarred over the past 16 years. As compared with that there were in 1949, when the United Party was still governing the Transvaal, only 1,590 miles of tarred road as against 5,190 miles to-day. In addition a further 380 miles are being tarred each year. Just look at the beautiful mountain route which is taking shape in the Transvaal. Look at the number of passes which have already been constructed and tarred. More will be said about this later. Looking at all these things, we must say that this motion is misplaced. Once more the hon. members of the Opposition have shown that they have no confidence in the United Party members in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. That is why this motion is a motion of no-confidence in the United Party in the Transvaal Provincial Council.

I think all those among us who are interested in good administration and good government will be grateful to the hon. member for Orange Grove for having brought this matter pertinently to the attention of the House. We are equally grateful to the hon. member for Brakpan for having brought the matter to the attention of the House as seen from the viewpoint of the Government. As for myself, it was a revelation to listen to my hon. friend the member for Brakpan. Obviously he did not read the motion.

But he put you in your place very neatly.

The motion relates to maladministration and the wastage of funds, something which was borne out by the hon. member for Orange Grove with reference to official documents of the Province of Transvaal. But the hon. member for Brakpan did not reply to one of those points. He did not deny one of them with any conviction. He gave us an account of the normal growth of a province with the vitality of the Transvaal.

In spite of their Party.

It may be in spite of their Party, but if there were a régime in the Transvaal which could not meet the increasing needs of the Transvaal, thanks to the development of the Transvaal’s activities by private entrepreuneurs, then they have no right to talk about the matter. We concede that the Transvaal is growing and that the growth of the Transvaal is spectacular. We concede that any administration in the Transvaal has to meet the consequential demands imposed by such spectacular growth. What we want to discuss to-day is the fact that that provision, as made by the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal, is accompanied by maladministration and the outrageous wastage of money. What is the reply to that? The reply given to us by the hon. member—I do not have time to discuss it in detail—referred, for example, to the wonderful progress made with regard to schools. That is true; that was necessary. The children are there and they have to go to school. But he did not tell us about the inexplicable deterioration. In the largest city, Johannesburg, a city with a population of 1¼ million, there are at present no hostel facilities whatsoever in a high school for English-speaking girls.

Is there a demand for that?

Of course there is demand for that. Why does my child have to go to school in the Cape Province? I should like to have her in Johannesburg, in my own city. Thousands and thousands of businessmen and others from Johannesburg have to go abroad for long spells. [Interjections.] There was one, but it was closed last year. Hostels of the Barnato Park High School, the Johannesburg Girls High, were closed last year. That is typical. And then he has the temerity to talk about progress and to say that the needs of the people are met. Sir, he talked about roads. I do not want to detract from the roads that have been built in the Transvaal. Very fine work has been done and I want to say that as far as the needs of the city dwellers in the Transvaal are concerned, particularly those of the two major cities, Pretoria and Johannesburg, the Transvaal is the most backward province in the country.

It has a United Party City Council.

No, the hon member must keep quiet and listen to what I am saying. He should not reveal his ignorance precipitately. I am talking about the road that links the Johannesburg municipality with the municipality of Pretoria, the road which links South Africa’s capital with South Africa’s largest city. It is still a single carriage-way. It is an inadequate road. Last year they started building the dual carriage-way which is needed. I believe the road between Durban and Pietermaritzburg will be completed this year or next year. That is the difference. Neither Durban nor Pietermaritzburg is a large city or the capital of South Africa. But the Natal Provincial Council meets the needs of the densely populated regions of South Africa, and the Transvaal Provincial Council sleeps.

Let us come back to the subject of the motion. The motion does not relate to the question as to whether the needs are being met. The motion relates to how those needs are met, and to the degree of efficiency and care with which they utilize the public money. What do we find? Anybody who listened to the account of the hon. member for Orange Grove must be shocked. It is unbelievable. He covered the field. I just want to emphasize a point here and there. He said, for example, that he would not even mention Vereeniging Hospital. I just want to read to you from the report of the sessional committee on public accounts of the Transvaal Provincial Council, to illustrate what happened at Vereeniging Hospital. This is the report which was published in February, 1964. It reads as follows—

Can you believe that, Sir? Look what happened in those seven years—

They had seven years in which to study the plans. First they start building and then they say the plans are worth nothing. But listen to this—

Can you believe that? Nor is it only Vereeniging. From the hon. member for Orange Grove we heard about similar cases which occurred in Auckland Park, Johannesburg, and Pietersburg. Similar things happened in the Children’s Hospital in Johannesburg. It is a pattern. One does not want to be unreasonable. When dealing with a large administration which involves an expenditure of millions and millions of rands, one expects an error now and then. Now and then an irregularity will occur. But when it becomes a pattern, a regular practice, and when one hears about a hospital building in the Transvaal and immediately expects something to go wrong, it is time we took notice of it. Sir, can you believe that the alterations to the Johannesburg General Hospital have been in abeyance for 13 years? For years, whenever one drives down Smith Street, past the Johannesburg General Hospital, one sees a block of three storeys with no windows and no inside walls. There it is, a monument to inefficiency, incompetence, ineptitude and wastage. It is unbelievable. I just want to give you an idea of what is happening in that department. They were building the Children’s Hospital. One of the excellent jobs in that hospital was the Röntgen Ray Department. It was built excellently and beautifully. Everything was right. Thousands of rands were spent quite justifiably. All that had to be done was to bring in the Röntgen Ray equipment. Then they found that they could not get it in. The doors and the windows were too small. They had to break them down to get the equipment into the hospital. One cannot help laughing. That is the money of the taxpayers. This is neither an exceptional nor an isolated instance. It is part of a programme. It is the rule. It happens in the case of virtually every hospital planned and built in the Transvaal. Nor is that all. I want to draw attention to something else which is happening as far as our hospitals are concerned. The hon. member for Brakpan referred to the fact that the United Party introduced free hospital services. Perhaps there were not enough beds. Perhaps there was a great deal wrong. But the middleclass family man knew that if there was grave illness in his family he could get the best treatment and that he would not be financially worried and troubled. But now free hospital services have been abolished. I doubt whether it is cut and dried: I wonder whether it will not be cheaper in the Transvaal nowadays to provide free hospital services rather than to continue with the hopeless, hamfisted, aimless and inefficient system obtaining, there. Here I have a stack of reports of the sessional committee on public accounts of the Transvaal, and I want to tell you a story from these reports. These are not wild statements. Every fact comes from the reports of the sessional committees and from the reports of the debates in the Provincial Council. The report states that in 1959-’60 outstanding fees payable by hospital patients up to 31st March, 1960, increased by R428,995 to R1,800,000. Bear in mind that that was seven or eight years ago. The committee requested unanimously that the matter receive serious consideration. Every United Party and Nationalist Party member on that committee asked that the matter should please receive attention. The following year the arrears increased not by R500,000 but by R1,094,000, and once again the committee requested that the matter receive attention, and said that it could not continue along those lines. In 1961-’62 the arrears increased by R1,258,292. In one year the arrears, increased by a third, and the committee said that it understood steps were being taken and that it hoped for the best. The next year there was a new phenomenon. Now the amounts are becoming much smaller because tremendous amounts are being written off all of a sudden. Large amounts among those that had’ to be written off, had to be written off because the claims had become prescribed. If the debtor can succeed for several years in not being placed in a position where he has to admit his debt by way of payment or by way of an application for an extension, the claim against him becomes prescribed.

Three years.

In 1962-’63 they wrote off the colossal amount of R1,107,000, and yet the arrears balance increased by R67,000 and the committee said: “It is really time now for an improvement.” In 1963-’64 they wrote off R1,181,000, and yet the total rose and the committee said there must be a. staff shortage somewhere. In 1964-’65 approximately R600,000 more was written off. The total debt is not mentioned, but if one looks at the report of the Auditor-General for 1965-’66, one finds that the amount outstanding at 31st March, 1966, was still more than R2 million. Although far more than R2 million had been written off, the amount was still higher than in 1951. The only deduction one can make from that is that there is something wrong somewhere, and if one wants to know what is wrong, one should look at the replies, the sessional committee received from the departments concerned. It appears that the difficulty arose because in 1946, during the period of free hospitalization, the accounts of the hospital in the Transvaal were centralized, but the results of that centralization were never put into effect when services had to be paid for once again, when the free hospital services were abolished. In 1966—you must, bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this is 1966; this is no longer 1946; this is 20 years later, of which the Nationalist Party has been in powers for 17 years—in 1966 high officials said—

The measures taken with a view to centralization were taken in 1946; in 1966 the control, the primary requirement of good government of the finance of an administration, is still falling between two stools. Surely that proves that one is dealing with poor management. One cannot blame the officials. The administration has a great responsibility to see to it that the officials can do their work properly and thoroughly, and if they allow a situation like this to continue for 20 years, or most certainly for 17/18 years after free hospital services were abolished, surely one is entitled to ask whether the flaw is not at the top, and if one finds that the same things which are happening in the hospital services are happening in the roads services and in the education department, particularly in the case of school hostels, one must assume that there is something wrong with the management. One must assume that it is bad management, that it is a regime which is prejudicing the Transvaal. Mr. Speaker, for the next three or four years we cannot have a new provincial government in the Transvaal because there will not be an election, but what we can in fact demand from the Nationalist Party, in this House as well, is that this matter be set right in the Transvaal and that the Government accept the proposal of the hon. member for Orange Grove and appoint a commission in order that some light may be thrown on these matters and in order that the people who are responsible for this state of affairs, the leaders of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal, may be called to order. Mr. Speaker, I support this motion emphatically and in the interests of the people of the Transvaal.

I am not surprised that the hon. members for Orange Grove and Yeoville put up such a performance this afternoon with regard to this matter. I want to deal at once with the last few points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. Firstly, he insinuated that as far as hospital planning in the Transvaal is concerned, there is something amiss under the National Party regime and that as far as free hospitalization is concerned, it is something terrible that we abolished it. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville a very simple question on which I want an unequivocal reply from him this afternoon. Is it true that until very recently the Executive Committee of the Transvaal was constituted of members of both of the political parties represented on the Provincial Council? Is that true, yes or no? If the hon. Member for Yeoville will not reply, then the hon. member for Orange Grove may answer me. Is it true that at that time, when the Executive Committee was constituted of members of both political parties, we had a certain Dr. Eben Woolf there, who was charged with hospitalization in the province of Transvaal? Is that true?

He left years ago.

We are talking about the planning.

The United Party is indulging once again in the type of underhand politicizing we have had from them all these years. They raise a tremendous duststorm here to bring the people outside and this House in particular under the impression that there is something sinister afoot in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. The man who abolished free hospitalization in the Transvaal was no less a person than the United Party Executive Committee member, Dr. Eben Woolf, and he did so because he arrived at the sincere conviction that the way the United Party wanted to implement free hospitalization in the Transvaal was abominable. I served on the Transvaal Provincial Council from 1949. I attended those council sessions and I knew what was going on. The hon. member for Yeoville and t-he hon. member for Orange Grove, who have heard something but do not know the rights of it, should not come here this afternoon and try to be clever as far as the internal activities of the Province are concerned. If they want to cast any blame on us to the effect that we abolished free hospitalization, they should lay the blame at the door of the man whom they appointed there and who was a member of their party. But I want to say that he did so with the whole-hearted co-operation and support of the National Party. He was convinced that it was the right thing to do in the Transvaal. I have challenged the United Party repeatedly, from one Transvaal platform after another, and in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, to show me one patient in the middle-income group who could not get treatment in a hospital in the Transvaal since we abolished free hospitalization. I challenge him now, and I am prepared to move that the time limit of this debate be extended in order to afford the hon. member an opportunity to reply to that. Free hospitalization was abolished, but there is bed accommodation for the inhabitants of the Transvaal, for every one who needs it.

Now as far as planning is concerned, I am not prepared to discuss the same old story that we have been chewing the cud on for the past three or four years. I cannot understand what is wrong with the United Party. Instead of looking for new fields, they come here once again and discuss all those old matters which have been discussed time and again. Sir, I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Orange Grove, who introduced this motion, could show somewhat more courtesy in this House and not be so rude as to talk while someone is dealing with him. If he cannot understand that, he should not be here.

You are a little bantam-cock, are you not?

The hon. member for Yeoville will have a great deal more to do with this little bantam-cock in future.

As far as hospital planning is concerned, and particularly that in respect of the J. G. Strijdom Hospital, the old Auckland Park Hospital, we make no apology for that. There is a whole set of Blue Books behind the hon. member for Yeoville, and in them you will find the answer to all the allegations made here to-day by him and by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I myself have set out the circumstances repeatedly. I said before in this House that the mind of the United Party was in a corset, and that it is simply impossible to budge it from a certain line of thought once it has been taken hold of by that corset. That also applies to this matter. I do not know why the time of this House should be wasted to-day by talking about what happened at the J. G. Strijdom Hospital. There was a concurrence of circumstances, and I want to say that the people of the Transvaal would have resented it very much if we had proceeded with the original plans and had established that 338-bed hospital, at the present stage of development. Let me say that that 338-bed hospital was planned as long ago as the early 1950’s, when Dr. Woolf was charged with it, and at the time he approved it. But in order to build a hospital one cannot simply press a button and appoint an architect and quantity surveyors and say that one wants to start with the hospital to-morrow. Hospital planning is something that takes a long time. One begins the planning long before one reaches the stage where tenders can be called for. Now you can appreciate what happened in the meantime. During those years there were times when we had shortages of capital. Many of the services planned in the 1950’s had to be put on ice, and as the capital became available, those things were taken off the ice and put out to tender and their building was commenced with. It frequently happens, and not only up in the Transvaal but also with the Central Government, that when one takes something off the ice one finds that that plan has become obsolete and that one has to replan. Hospitalization in particular is one of the most scientific things, and circumstances change from day to day. Some years ago I attended an international congress on hospital planning in Stockholm, and the people then told us that we should simply forget about thinking that a hospital can be planned without adaptation, and that when one reaches the stage where building is commenced with, one should not think that those plans are still scientifically correct. In view of the scientific developments in the field of hospitalization and medicine, adjustments have to be made from time to time in the hospital planning. For that reason the Director of Hospital Services said in the letter quoted here that that hospital was obsolete and had to be changed. This was caused by new developments, not by the whims of the National Party, and that is the reason why we did that. I think it would have been silly and political folly if we had not done that. The United Party would have carried out an obsolete plan there. But we felt that in the provision we were making we could enlarge that hospital at a low cost to a 750-bed hospital, and that is what is taking place now. It would be stupid of us, particularly with a view to the development of the new university there, if we did not provide for a training hospital at the J. G. Strijdom hospital, pending the decision of the Government. Let us not be short-sighted, as the United Party was in planning the General Hospital. Let us look over the rise and into the future and let us lay the right foundation now, in order that we may be ready if we are called upon to do that kind of thing.

As for the Johannesburg Hospital, I want to say that not a penny was wasted on that site and on the big skeleton standing there, to which the hon. member for Yeoville also referred.

Building costs have doubled in the past 13 years.

Exactly. I am quite prepared to grant that, and in view of the fact that we erected that structure in 1961, surely it is much cheaper than it would have been to build it now. It is not to be demolished. I think the National Party should be praised for erecting that structure in 1961. It is now being filled in and we are now deriving the benefit from the cheaper erection of the structure in 1961. But that is how I know the hon. member for Yeoville. The moment one touches him to the quick, he reacts like an hysterical cat and then he gives that cynical little laugh of his. These are the facts off the matter, and now I want to say this: With regard to the Johannesburg Hospital which is to be erected, I would be the first to admit that it is wrong to erect that structure on that site, but this is due to a concurrence of circumstances beyond any control. The Ronald McKenzie block, as it is standing there, is a fairly good structure and it would be a waste of money to demolish it. But it is not something which simply happened overnight. It took place after consultation between the Provincial Administration and the Johannesburg Medical School. It was done after very thorough consideration. Dr. Woolf took part in it while he was still a member of the executive committee. A portion of those negotiations rested on his shoulders. Here I have a lengthy account of the report which appeared at the time. It was sent to him and it was then decided, after the university had said that it was simply not feasible to erect the hospital’ on any other site, that they could not afford to spend a further R4 million—that was the cost at the time—on a new medical school. We decided that the medical school should stay where it was. If the medical school were to be moved to-day, it would cost perhaps R15 million. It was therefore decided, after consultation between the university and the Province, that this enlarged medical teaching hospital would be built in Johannesburg. We are not responsible for the fact that it was subsequently stated that the medical school had to be expanded. That was due to a concurrence of circumstances. When those circumstances became known, it was decided to increase the number of hospital beds. These delays were the result of that. All these things are recorded in the Provincial Council’s Hansard. I simply cannot understand why those hon. members should waste the time of the House by raising these matters here.

But there is an election in Johannesburg.

Yes, that seems to be the case. The hon. member for Brakpan dealt with that and therefore I do not want to come back to that. But now I want to know why there is an auditor and why a sessional committee is appointed to keep an eye on the finance of a province? The reason is of course to point out this kind of thing, things to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred. Let me say that we are grateful that such things are exposed. We are grateful that such things can be considered. But surely it is outrageous of the hon. member to point a finger and allege that the executive committee turned a deaf ear to those findings, that they did nothing about them.

The auditor himself said that.

But there are reasons for that. Will the hon. member permit me to give him those reasons? If he will permit me, I will give chapter and verse to demonstrate for what sound reasons those outstanding debts of patients were not collected. Some cases were covered by industrial legislation, and the Industrial Conciliation Act had to be amended. In other cases it was motor vehicle insurance money which could not be collected. There were cases of free patients who were in arrears with their fees and from whom those fees could not be collected. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he wants us to sue those people and take them to court. There were medical aid scheme cases whom we admitted to our hospitals and who could not pay. There were patients who were initially admitted as fully-paid patients, but who incurred such high accounts as a result of their long stay in hospital that they simply could not pay. From purely humane considerations we did not try to collect those debts forcibly. We did in fact try to get the money, but in due course the amounts were written off. But when such amounts are written off, it is said that the money of the province is wasted. I should like the hon. member for Orange Grove to give one example of an account written off without a well-founded and well-considered reason. That should be his charge against the Provincial Council of the Transvaal to-day. Surely reasons were given in public, in the council, in order that the public might know what was going on, why this money had been written off.

Of course, there were quite a few dodgers, people who evaded payment. Initially one tries to prosecute them, but if they cannot be prosecuted, well, there is no point in forcing up the cost until it becomes more than the principal debt. There are also insolvent estates. It is a lengthy account and I have it here, and I am prepared to give it to the hon. member for Yeoville for his inspection as soon as I have finished my speech. I hope he will then gain peace of mind and realize that the provincial council is not really as bad as he thinks it is.

The hon. member made such a fuss about inventory losses. In 1964-’65 the working costs of the Transvaal hospital services amounted to R12,023.200. The hon. member knows that. The inventory losses which are giving the hon. member the heebie-jeebies to-day amounted to only R85,300. So that is the loss which gave rise to all his fussing. Sir, it is only .7 per cent of the working costs of hospital services in the Transvaal. A business undertaking with such a tremendous turnover would thank its stars if it incurred only .7 per cent losses.

What happened in the Transvaal? In the 1964-’65 financial year the number of patients increased from 500,000 to 600,000. In the same period the number of hospital beds increased from 16,787 to 16,939. Our patient-days increased from 5,340,000 to 5,450,000. Outpatients and casualty treatments increased from 3,600,000 to 4,400,000. The hon. member for Orange Grove knows nothing about these things. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had read that and then made the allegations which he did in fact make here, then I say the hon. member was politicizing here, Mr. Speaker, in order to throw dust in the public’s eyes. But that is what hon. members on the opposite side are always doing. That is how we have always known the hon. member for Orange Grove. We. too, employed him to try to do this kind of thing when he was still in the National Party. When he did not do it well, we told him, “Off you go.” In due course the United Party will also do that with him. I really think the hon. member for Yeoville is most unfortunate as far as the hon. member is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I mention these things to give an indication of what is happening in the Transvaal. I could have elaborated even further if I had the time.

Let us consider the question of the linen banks. Let us admit it is wrong. I would be the first to admit that everything was not in order as far as the linen-bank control was concerned. But can it be said by any hon. member to-day, now that these things have become public and particularly in view of the fact that we handle millions and millions of linen articles of all kinds—from nappies to sheets—that there is something seriously wrong? But if matters are not right and one ignores them or fails to set them right, then hon. members may complain that there is something wrong. But those things were set right. Sir. I want to tell the hon. members for Orange Grove and Yeoville to go and talk to Mr. Harry Schwarz and to ask him, seeing that he serves on the sessional committee, whether he is not happy now with the new arrangement made with regard to the establishment of a linen bank. They may ask Major Opperman the same question. In my day I was responsible for it, Sir, and permit me to say that I think the new system is working very well indeed.

I want to come to another aspect with regard to which such a tremendous fuss was made here, and that is the so-called free dams which were built in the Transvaal by the roads department. Hon. members alleged that large-scale thefts were being committed, that the taxpayer’s money was being stolen. If hon. members knew the topography and the soil composition in the areas where those dams were built, they would realize that in those areas there is a very dry and loose surface layer which has to be removed to reach the actual gravel layer. Is there anything wrong if the farmer who supplies the gravel free of charge for the construction of roads is told that the surface layer has to be removed in any event and that the work will be carried out in such a way—without any extra cost—that the surface layer of the soil will be bulldozed to farm a natural dam? Because, Sir, this will also benefit the farmer who provides these things free of charge on his land, in that it will be possible to conserve the water on his land. For heaven’s sake, what is sinister or wrong about that? [Interjection.] I believe that matter has been referred to the Attorney-General. There is only one small exception. That is the one exception of an offence which was committed, and now the hon. member is making a tremendous fuss about that and is inflating that into a major issue. I want to say that as far as this matter is concerned they are doing the farming community in that region a great favour.

What has the Province done? In view of the tremendous growth-rate of the Transvaal we have to accept, and the hon. member for Yeoville granted that, that there may be flaws in the administration, but the province did not turn a deaf ear as far as these matters were concerned. A proper organization and a work-study section have now been established in the Transvaal with officials in all departments of the administration to help to make proper work studies from time to time and to get matters into operation. I am convinced, as far as the sessional committee is concerned, that after they have brought these matters to the notice of the province they will also be satisfied that these things will be done properly in future. I want to say that high tribute is also paid to the good administration. Anyone who visits the Provincial Council year after year and who listens to the budget debates conducted there will hear the panegyrics for things done in the Province. I just want to give a final example. I wondered why the hon. member did not get around to that. From my own constituency, Benoni, great praise was recently received from no less a person than that illustrious provincial councillor, Mr. Morrie Nestadt of Benoni. Here I have it in his own handwriting. He said—

This is only one example of this kind of thing. Here are other letters written to the hospitals department in which international figures have much to say in praise of what is done in the hospitals. But then one finds people who always go about like chameleons and lurk unseen with a long tongue for catching political flies. That is the kind of person we have. I support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Brakpan and I hope this kind of thing will not take place here again. The provincial administrations are very jealous of their sovereignty. The political parties were put there by the electorate, who sent you and me here—because they are exactly the same voters—to do their work. Do not try to take the wind out of the sails of your own people who serve on that council. You are merely harming them. They can do their job very well. I think Harry Schwarz as leader of the Opposition in the provincial council, is doing a much better job of work than this Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to congratulate my two old friends from the provincial council, namely the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Benoni, for their really first-class display this afternoon of righteous indignation. You know, Mr. Speaker, when you have no case the best way of reply is by means of a display of righteous indignation. I must say that they fulfilled their tasks very admirably this afternoon. The hon. member for Brakpan told us of the developments that have taken place in the Transvaal over the past 17 years. He said these were monuments to Nationalist Government rule. It is true that there has been a great deal of development in the Transvaal over the past 17 years but surely over a period of 17 years you expect even the Nationalist Government to be able to achieve something. It would have been ridiculous if after 17 years there had been no development.

Let us look at a few of the items the hon. member mentioned. He used the provincial building as an example. The provincial building is a very beautiful building but the hon. member for Brakpan knows as well as I do that for a year that beautiful building was just a hole in the ground, not even three storeys high as is the case with the hospital in Johannesburg. It lay there for over 12 months with no development whatever. The original cost of the building of £2 million finally amounted to £6 million. The hon. member told us about the development in schools. Of course there has been development in the schools, but did he tell us about the over-development of schools in certain parts of the platteland where they cannot fill these schools and where they have had to advertise for pupils to attend them? Did he tell us about prefabricated schools in the urban areas which remained as prefabricated schools for 8 to 10 years? When I went to see the Administrator about this, he said: “You can’t hope to get a proper school for 14 years”. Fortunately we managed to persuade him to do something earlier. Does he know of schools where the prefabricated classrooms were removed and two years later brought back again? Did the hon. member tell us about the schools that were built for 750 pupils and which to-day are housing 1,000, 1,200 and as many as 1,400 pupils? This is what is happening. Did the hon. member tell us what went on in regard to minor repairs where, when you had a matter reported which might cost £5 or £10 to repair, such as a gutter at a school, it was left for up to four years? I calculated, as the hon. member knows, that in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal there was wasted expenditure in one year of £100,000, at that time, in this regard alone, because if you do not repair a gutter to-day, in three years time you must put on a new roof. These are some of the things which happened in the course of this development. He said that we had free hospitalization and there were no beds. That may be true, but what did we get from the provincial councils since the Nationalists came to power? Now we have beds put no nurses. How many wards were closed up in provincial hospitals because there was nobody to look after those wards? The hon. member must therefore not talk to us about having no beds because to-day there are certainly no nurses.

To say that this motion is a vote of no confidence in the United Party members of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, is utter rubbish. The reason why this motion was submitted is that despite the fact that United Party members have brought these matters to the attention of Nationalist Party majority time after time, they get nothing done. Therefore we as the senior body in this country have had to bring it to the notice of this House.

Do not let it be misunderstood. This does not mean interfering with the rights of the provinces. There is nobody more jealous of the rights of the provinces than the United Party but the position has gone too far in the Transvaal as I shall explain in a moment.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Benoni who seems to have disappeared. The hon. member mentioned Dr. T. B. Woolf as having been the Exco member of the provincial council responsible for hospitalization at the time we changed from free hospitalization to paid hospitalization. I think that it would only have been fair if the hon. member had also told this House that every single member of the United Party in the provincial’ council voted against the motion to change from free to paid hospitalization. We debated morning, noon and night to try to prevent free hospitalization being terminated. The hon. member made a fairly good point in regard to hospital buildings. He said that when you plan and put the plans into cold storage because there is no money available to build, you must expect changes. We agree but with this difference. When you have plans and you put them into cold storage, you must not take them out and then start building and when you are half way with the building operations, then start changing the plans. What normal people do is to take the plans out of cold storage, re-examine them to see if there are any changes to be made and then start building. But that is not what the Nationalists in the Transvaal do. They take the plans out of cold storage, start building and then stop building and continue this process, just like their pull-push method dealing with inflation. The hon. member said that we got the benefits of the building in I think 1963. Yes, we did. We got the difference in cost of what it would have cost then and what it cost to-day, but let the hon. member deduct from that the additional costs incurred as a result of putting up this building and now having to design them again, and they will not show a profit. Then the hon. member for Benoni told us that we really should not have raised this matter in this House because after all there is a Provincial Auditor and there is a sessional committee. We know that. I had the privilege of serving for six years on that sessional committee. I do not know who the Provincial Auditor is to-day, but in my day the reports of the Provincial Auditor were exemplary. And the work of the Sessional Committee was excellent. And as the hon. member for Benoni has said—and I hope this tradition will never be changed—in the Sessional Committee there is no politics. The Sessional Committee represents the entire House and it is there to do a job for the House. The Sessional Committee in my time did a good job and I am sure it is doing a first class job at present. But, where do you go when you find that the auditor is reporting year after year about things that are going wrong. Where do you go when you find that the Sessional Committee is saying that this or that has to be put right or done, recommending one thing after the other without anything happening. Where do you go? And I am going to prove to the hon. member for Benoni just now that assurance after assurance was given by the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council to the Sessional Committee and to the House, and that a year or two years thereafter the Sessional Committee and the Provincial Auditor had to come back and say that you told us this and that you gave us this assurance, but that nothing has happened and that the position is worse. And the hon. member knows this. The hon. member for Benoni knows this. The Sessional Committee reports are full of such cases. I will point to a few things just now. The hon. member for Benoni also said, if I understood him correctly, that there was a reason for every debt that was written off in hospital accounts. This I think goes without saying. No auditor will ever allow a debt to be written off just “somaarso”. There has to be a basic reason for writing off a debt. But what were the basic reasons? They could be that they have gone bad, become prescribed, that the bookkeeping was wrong or that the whole position could not be sorted out because of wrong entries. So obviously somebody had to get authority to write-off these amounts. Otherwise they would have cluttered up the provincial books for years. It is no use to come and tell us that every amount that was written off was written off for a reason. I am surprised at my hon. friend for Benoni to come and tell us that story. I always thought he was much cleverer than that. I now come to the question namely the reason for us raising this matter in this House. The hon. member for Orange Grove told us that R140 million on Revenue Account was voted by this House for the provinces each year. In the case of the Transvaal. more or less 47 per cent of their total revenue expenditure is provided by this House. They get these funds from the Central Government. We have no objection to the principle. No objection at all. But. if these funds are not being properly administered. then surely it is not only our right but also our duty to bring these matters to the attention of the House. These things have been going on for a very long time. I left the Sessional Committee in the Transvaal province in 1961. That is six years ago. I served on it for six years. And already it was quite apparent during the period that I served, that over wide fields of provincial expenditure there was a great deal to be desired in the control of the finances of the province. And as I said just now. if you will go through the reports of the Sessional Committee on Public Accounts you will find reference after reference to identical items where things continuously went wrong and where recommendation after recommendation to have them put right were made with very little action being taken. What perturbs us is this. While it was reasonably bad. if one can call a thing reasonably bad. up to 1961, it seemed to have got cumulatively worse until we reached a stage in 1967 where you have the facts as presented to you by the hon. members for Orange Grove and Yeoville. And, if the Executive Committee of the Transvaal is unable as it well may be, or, unwilling. to put these matters right, then surely this issue becomes a matter for us.

When you find lack of control in any organization to-day and over the last 7 to 10 years, you have always had one reason for it, namely shortage of staff. “We cannot get the staff.” That is correct. Staff has been a very vexed problem and we have talked about it in this House in different contexts many times. But one does not simply sit down and say that one cannot get staff and leave it at that. This is not the way people in private enterprise operate. It is not the way people in many spheres of Government operate. You decide to do something about it. I want to be fair Mr. Speaker. The Province did do something about it. When this continuous complaint that there was no staff was being raised they decided to mechanize their salaries. They purchased a modern machine at the time, which is probably out of date by now with the new computers coming onto the market. They introduced a punch card system of mechanized accounting. And this was to deal with salaries. What has happened? Since the introduction of that mechanized equipment the position has got worse and not better. That is what has happened. [Interjections.] I now want to quote from the Sessional Committee’s report of July 1966. Some of it has already been referred to but I want to bring it to the notice of the hon. member for Brakpan particularly because he was very critical. Now, these are not the words of the hon. member for Orange Grove nor is it repeated from the Hansard of any member of the Provincial Council. This is the official Sessional Committee’s report. And I am sure the hon. member for Brakpan will accept it as such. This is what the report says under the heading, “Lack of Internal Control and Supervision”—

I presume that the hon. member now agrees that there were “erroneous payments and adjustments”.

That was due to a fault of the machine.

I quote further—

There were underpayments too.

Yes, and overpayments. I am not concerned whether they are under or overpayments. What I am concerned with is that when I was in the province nearly 10 to 12 years ago, a mechanical system was installed and even now this system is not functioning.

But how many teachers are there?

That does not matter. Very often with mechanical equipment the old saying, “the more the merrier”, really helps the mechanical equipment a lot. But the report continues—

And this is what the Sessional Committee says—

Now let us accept these things. I know that the hon. members for Brakpan and Benoni have a difficult job, but let us try and put the thing in its right perspective. Fact is fact, and all the righteous indignation cannot change fact. Now, surely this is a case, namely this case here, where a responsible member of the Executive Committee should have done something about it. Now, in the Transvaal—I am not sure of the position in the rest of the Republic but I understand in most cases it is now the same—there are full time—I do not like to use the word employees—officers. But they seem to be a law unto themselves.

Whom are you referring to now?

I am referring to the members of the Executive Council. They are full time officers of the Transvaal. This is their sole job, namely to look after the affairs of the Transvaal. And you would have thought that the member of the Executive Council responsible for this particular portfolio would have done something about it. But the position seems to be that in the Transvaal you have reached the stage where the members of the Executive Committee are a law unto themselves. And they do not take much notice of criticism. And that is borne out by the replies to the Sessional Committee over the last 10 years which is there for anybody to read. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member dealt briefly with the position of the fees outstanding on study loans and bursaries. And I would like again to give you some of the comment on this issue. In the report of the Sessional Committee of July 1966 on page 3 it makes a short but very apt observation. It says—

That is how they reported on fees outstanding.

What fees are those?

Study loans and bursaries. The position regarding these fees from 1961 to 1964, changed as follows: Before 1961 there were 42 debtors owing R8,675; during 1961 there were 77 debtors owing R17,888; during 1962 there were 105 debtors owing R30,026; during 1963 there were 177 debtors owing R48,325; and during 1964 there were 702 debtors owing R207,499.

Have you ever heard of the drought in the Transvaal? [Interjections.]

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have two answers to every question when a job has been badly done in this country. The first one is the one that I have referred to, namely that you cannot get staff. That is the first one, and now it is the drought. Everything that happens in this country is put down to the drought. Thank goodness that not only has the drought been broken for the sake of every inhabitant of this country but thank goodness it is being broken so that it could literally wash out this reason that is advanced for everything that is going wrong. I am only waiting on some hon. member on the other side to tell us that the Vaal Dam is overflowing because of the drought. [Interjections.] That would be the ultimate result. Because we have had it as a reason on every other single thing, except when we lost the cricket match. [Interjections.] I now want to go back and try and contrast and to point out for how long this has been going on. I want to quote a little story from the Auditor’s Report way back in 1957. Now, this is a story that I remember very well, namely the one of the 60 Morris trucks. And it is no good my telling it because nobody will believe me, Mr. Speaker, except yourself I am sure. But I will read from the Sessional Committee’s report and then there can be no room for argument. It says this—

That was in the time of the Saps.

Now, give me credit for a little intelligence. Do you really think I did not know that? They might have been bought while the United Party were in power and they might not. I do not know, but that is immaterial. [Interjections.] It was about 1948. [Interjections.]

Order!

I continue with this story—

The Nationalist Party came into power in March, 1949. The report continues—

Let us assume the worst, Sir. Let us assume that the United Party Government bought the wrong trucks. It could happen.

You know that.

No, I do not. I shall accept the hon. member’s word for that. The Nationalist Party Government sat on them for seven years.

They did not sit on them.

Well, they sat on the roadside for seven years, and only at the insistence of the sessional committee did they do anything about it. What did they do? They sold them for £8.000 after an initial payment of £54,000. As it says in the report, “No further comment is necessary”. For seven years they left those trucks standing in the garage. If they had disposed of them earlier, they would at least have got somewhere.

I now come to hostel fees. Again I want to go back to 1957. I want to quote from the report.

What about the Austin trucks? Do you not remember them?

Yes, I remember them very well. I remember how the Nationalist Government would not do anything for seven years, and then lost £48,000 on them. Under the heading “Hostel Fees: Outstandings—P u p i l s and Sundry”, the report states—

What does the auditor say and what does the sessional committee say?—

Mr. Speaker, this is what has been going on in the province of the Transvaal for year after year. The sessional committee has had assurances that positive measures have been taken and then the auditor says that the position has deteriorated considerably. That is why we are raising these matters to-day.

There is another item, namely Stoves. I refer to page 3 of the report for 1957. This is what the sessional committee says—

Quite honestly, Sir, one could go on for hours reading case after case, but I am sure I have brought the picture home pertinently to the hon. members for Brakpan and Benoni. There are dozens of cases. There is the Question of fruitless expenditure.

Only a dozen cases?

No, dozens and dozens. There is the question of designing a building and then deciding that you do not want it. This does happen, Sir, but we do not like to read in the sessional committee’s report that there is no co-ordination between departments. That is what we do not like to read. We do not like to see stores not reconciled for year after year, and reports having to be brought to the sessional Committee that stock has not been taken in department after department for year after year. We do not like such expressions as: “The Sessional Committee notes with alarm”, “It is inconceivable that there is such lack of proper control”, “Your Committee notes with concern”, etc. It all boils down to the fact that, in the light of what has been said here this afternoon, there is little doubt that there is not adequate control in the province. It is quite certain that it is time that these matters were brought to the notice of the public at large. It is time that the taxpayer of the Transvaal, who pays direct taxation. and the taxpayer of the Republic of South Africa, who pays indirect taxation to the Transvaal. became aware of these things. If the Executive Committee of the Transvaal will not put these matters right, then somebody else will have to be found to put them right. Hence our motion.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown quoted facts about Morris vehicles which were allegedly there when the United Party was in power and that it took the Nationalists seven years to put the matter right. Sir, I am surprised that they were able to put the matter right within seven years, because the chaotic conditions we inherited from the United Party when we took over the province were such that I am surprised that we succeeded in putting matters right within ten years.

I should like to come to the motion as such. As far as I am concerned, the motion introduced by the hon. member for Orange Grove is nothing but an election cry for the municipal elections in Johannesburg. In all seriousness, I regard it as an insult to the Transvaal Provincial Council and to myself, who had the privilege of serving on that Council under the National Party regime for eight years.

The Opposition introduced a motion of no-confidence a little while ago. This motion has the same object, but in disguise. In the case of the first motion they were sent way with a flea in the ear. They now think they will first try to make some political capital. The hon. member asks for a judicial commission to be appointed, which I really think is going very far. If we consider the record of the Transvaal Administration under the Nationalist Party regime I think the National Party and the Transvaal Provincial Council have reason to feel deeply insulted. We cannot but view it in that light. Hon. members have quoted many things and they have tried to create the impression that the Transvaal Provincial Council have made many mistakes. Those accusations were repudiated very effectively by the hon. members for Brakpan and Benoni. They also quoted some facts, but there are a few matters I want to take further. It has been said, inter alia, that dams were built for the farmers. The hon. member for Benoni has already said something about that. A spirit of goodwill existed between the Administration and the farming community. When the United Party was in power roads were made over people’s farms. They took gravel wherever they wanted to. To-day those places are terrible dongas causing soil erosion. The National Party Government is much more considerate. They co-operate with the farmers and landowners. They take gravel only after they have come to an agreement with the farmer as to where they may take it. And why cannot the large quarries from which the gravel is taken after the farmer has given his consent, quarries which will not cause any soil erosion, not be used as dams? We went even further. I can quote you an example. When the road had to be built up near Ohrigstad in order to build a bridge across the railway-line, gravel had to be conveyed there for that purpose. It was impossible to obtain that gravel at any other place than at the site of the Ohrigstad school. At the same time we bulldozed sports fields for the school. We got the gravel where we wanted it and at the same time the school, which is also a provincial institution, got its sports fields. If the Opposition wants to complain about that and say that it is illegal, they have, to my mind, really sunk to a level which is below me. I want to go further. Do you know that when the United Party was in power they built roads for “pals”? I am prepared to prove that to you to-day. There are still roads in my constituency to-day which were built for a friend of the M.P.C., roads leading to his winter grazing for his sheep, during those years when the United Party was in office. There is another road which was built for a certain official who wanted to go hunting. There was no road and the then Provincial Administration sent a cart with a few road-workers to make a road for him. Those are the people who want to attack us to-day. I think the Opposition should be a little more careful in what they say about the administration of the National Party.

Much has been said about free hospital services. The hon. member for Parktown also referred to it. Why have those free hospital services been abolished? They are still blaming us to-day that we prejudiced the poor man by doing that. May I quote you a few examples, Sir? With those free hospital services in the Transvaal it happened that many of the rich gentlemen of Johannesburg visited Europe on business for a month or two. and made arrangements with their doctors for their wives to spend a holiday in hospital at the expense of the State. That is what happened. [Interjections.] The Opposition has the peculiar habit that when they are being given a rap over the knuckles they pretend that it is something of which they take no notice. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker. I go further and I say that the Transvaal would have been bankrupt to-day if we had continued with our free hospital services the way the United Party wanted us to. Then we would not have been in a position to build the hospital for them in Johannesburg, the hospital about which they are complaining so much. The Opposition in the Transvaal Provincial Council is only concerned about Johannesburg. An hon. member on that side has already mentioned that. But the Opposition has never cared for ensuring that justice is done to the rural areas. They have never said anything about hospital services for the poor people in the rural areas. They have never said anything about hospital services for our pioneers, those people who have to open up our country. Everything has to be concentrated in Johannesburg. We still find that more money is allocated to the hospital in Johannesburg in the Estimates than to the Dr. H. F. Verwoerd Hospital in Pretoria. Nevertheless they are always full of complaints. It will be interesting to go further and to draw a comparison, although there is really nothing to compare. The Opposition is very much afraid that we shall tell the world about the development and the progress which have been made during the term of office of the National Party. They try to conceal those things as far as possible and then they come forward with frivolous complaints which they allege are based on the report of the auditor and the session committee, I also have a report here dealing with roads, and it refers specifically to the case of the Heidelberg unit. The report reads as follows (translation)—

Nevertheless the Opposition make a big fuss here about this particular case. It is. however, my privilege to defend the Transvaal Provincial Council. I have here two Estimates. The one is in respect of the year 1948-’49 and the other is for 1966. We shall now see what amounts were spent on the various services in the Transvaal. In 1966 a total amount of R171 million was spent, which represented a net increase of R21 million over the amount for the previous year. The net amount spent in the last year of United Party rule—the last year they were in the synagogue—amounted to only R39,073,000.

Including free hospitalization.

That was long before that time. I am going to draw another comparison. The hospital services the Opposition is so concerned about also show a very interesting picture. In these Estimates the National Party Government of the Transvaal voted an amount of R41,400,000 in respect of hospital and health services. The total Estimates for the financial year 1948-’49 did not even amount to R40 million. How then is it possible that hon. members can make a fuss here about the National Party’s administration in the Transvaal?

How long ago was that?

The first amount is in respect of 1966 and the other is in respect of 1948-’49, when the United Party was in power

That was 20 years ago.

Yes. That does not matter. The same picture can be presented in respect of road and other services.

If the hon. members really think that they can impress the voters by stirring up suspicion against the National Party, they should come to light with something else and not make the kind of accusation that has been made here. I really think I shall be able to speak for probably another 40 minutes if we want to cover the entire field, for example education in all its ramifications, hospital services, roads, public works and so forth, and everything that has been done about these things by the Transvaal Provincial Administration under National Party rule. Then the facts would be brought to light. Unfortunately time does not permit me to do so.

I should like, however, to refer to hospital services under National Party rule. In the old days when the United Party was in office English was the only medium used for the training of nurses. Now we have a fine training college for nurses, and the National Party, the party which is being criticized so much by the Opposition, has given equal rights to both language groups. The Opposition is so much inclined to evade this—they do not want to talk about it. Do they realize, however, what they have done by always trampling upon the Afrikaans language? Now they are the people who want to accuse us! We are showing them how a right-minded nation and party should act. Mr. Speaker, we say both language groups should have equal rights. I therefore want to appeal to the Opposition to take note of these things in future.

What is the position as regards nurses’ salaries? The following leading report appeared in the Star of 19th November, 1964: “Nurses get big pay increases.” That happened under National Party rule. The salary scales which applied previously were laid down by the United Party. But the National Party introduced new scales. We have the position to-day that the nursing profession in the Transvaal are very satisfied with their conditions of service. They are rendering good service. As science progresses in the field of medicine we have to train our nurses to assist the doctors carrying out those delicate operations. We are now in a position to train specialized nurses at our new training college in Pretoria. They can also follow a degree course. That will’ enable us to render better specialized service to humanity.

Can hon. members opposite really come here and introduce such a motion with a clear conscience? I believe the hon. member for Orange Grove should withdraw this motion. I can say many more things.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. member for Orange Grove has no conscience?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the hon. the Opposition-once again and I want to ask them first to consider what is going on in their own ranks and to keep in mind the chaotic conditions which prevailed when they were in office. They should consider the damage they did to our country, both economically and politically. When they have done that and when they have ascertained for themselves whether they really served South Africa, they will not introduce a motion such as this.