Mr. Speaker, I believe that the present Parliament and the present Government, because of the mandate it has received, has resting on its shoulders as heavy a responsibility as any Government in South Africa at any time, in peace time, has had resting on its shoulders. Let us hope, Sir, that we shall continue to be able to speak about “peace time.” I believe we have reached one of those critical periods of history where events are pressing upon us in such a way that we are being forced to take decisions which may affect the future of this country for many years to come, for good or for evil. What will be on trial during the next five years, whether this Government likes it or not, is the moral basis of the Government’s policy of apartheid, a policy sometimes called “separate development”. I notice now, Sir, that it is referred to as “national reconstruction”. It will be on trial not only before the Republic but before the tribunals of world opinion. The Government has landed itself in the position where it must urgently uncover and prove that moral basis exists or admit failure and allow the country to go on some other path. Facing this challenge in the opening speech of the State President last Friday, what did we have? We were presented with no concrete plans whatsoever. It was merely again an attempt to justify the Government’s position and to establish that “apartheid” as interpreted by it, was the road to national reconstruction in which domination and discrimination, it is claimed, would disappear. So far, despite nearly 14 years of effort, they have been unable to convince the world that they were moving in that direction. I make bold to say, Sir, that they have not even done enough to set the consciences of their own people at rest in this regard. In fact, if one thing is clear, then it is that we have been paying a very heavy price indeed for this policy. Because of this policy we are out of the Commonwealth; because of this policy we are in trouble with the United Nations Organization not only in respect of internal policies but also in respect of our mandate over the territory of South West Africa. Because of it we are fast becoming isolated in the international sphere; because of it also we are experiencing greater stresses internally in the field of race relationship. Other consequences may follow. What those consequences will be we may have to examine this afternoon. Pressures are building up against us which are becoming so menacing and so dangerous, that I think it must be getting through even to the members of this Government that the time at their disposal is not unlimited. There is urgent need for action if the situation is to improve. I was interested to note that the Government reiterated in the State President’s speech that to advance good race relations, every racial group must be advanced according to a clear pattern to a suitable form of self-government for it. To date no clear pattern has emerged at all. Government speakers have contradicted each other; there has been unbelievable vagueness and there has been an unwillingness to face up to the facts of the situation. Because of that we suffered both internally and externally. Internally because the non-European, save in the field of housing, has on the whole experienced only the negative aspect of these policies and is beginning to wonder whether a positive side exists. And externally because the outside world does not believe there is a positive side or that it can be carried out. And that, Sir, goes for both our friends and our enemies so that in both spheres we are getting the worst of both worlds.

I want to say that although I differ fundamentally from the policy of this Government—I doubt if I can differ more fundamentally—I believe that a positive side does exist but I have sometimes entertained the suspicion, a suspicion which grew during the election and which was strengthened by the speech of the State President last Friday, that the Government has a reason for not revealing its plans for the positive aspect of the policy of apartheid. The reason for not revealing those plans, I believe, is that they will involve great sacrifices for the European section of the population, the electorate. And I believe that this Government is afraid to reveal those plans to the electorate for fear of losing the support of the people who put them into power. I think that will especially be the case when they realize that those sacrifices are futile because the Government’s policy is offering them no solution at all. It is because I believe that it is in the interests of South Africa that there should be clarity in this matter—and this Government is now challenged once and for all to carry out its policy—that I have framed the motion standing in my name in the following terms—

1. (a) the ultimate boundaries of the intended Bantu homelands and the methods and the time-table to be adopted to convert existing Bantu Reserves into such enlarged and consolidated independent homelands for the various Bantu peoples;
2. (b) the future role of the urban Bantu in the life of the Republic;
3. (c) the method of dispensing justice to the Coloured and Asiatic peoples of the Republic under the proposed dispensation; and
4. (d) the financial, economic and international implications of these steps if taken,

Let us look at this problem together and try to assess the position as it stands to-day. Let us always remember three things: Firstly, that in the implementation of this matter time is becoming of the essence. Secondly, that the 1st of May may be an important date insofar as South West Africa is concerned. Thirdly, that the emphasis on defence in the State President’s speech has not passed unnoticed. When we look at this position we find that since 1948 this Government’s predecessors of the same party have been telling us about various forms of apartheid, all of which had a territorial content. But with the advent of the present Prime Minister, geographical segregation has become a paramount consideration and for that consolidation of geographic units is a prime requisite. Despite this what do we find? This Government is still unsure whether certain areas are going to remain reserves or not and have no clear ideas as yet, which they are prepared to reveal to the public, as to where the actual boundaries of the proposed independent Bantu homelands will be. This state of affairs has led to complaint from agricultural associations in the Transvaal, in Zululand and in the Eastern Cape. And they have been complaining because this uncertainty has placed them in a position where sound farming practices are seldom being applied because considerable sections of the community are not certain as to what their position will be in the future. Not only those who believe that they themselves will be affected directly have been influenced by this uncertainty, but also their neighbours. No one to-day wants a boundary contiguous with a future Bantustan.

Why not?

My friend asks “why not”. If he were a farmer and had a little experience he would know that farming in those areas has very special problems and he would know how difficult the situation was if he had only attended the meetings of those farmers’ associations. What has happened? The security of whole districts has been affected. There are still doubts as to the amount of land to be purchased, as to the area envisaged by the Government and as well as that, the vital necessity for consolidation of the various Black areas, if this policy is to be carried out. That makes it inevitable that vast changes are going to take place. One has only got to call to mind that there are well over 264 Black areas to be consolidated into seven Bantu homelands to have some idea of the violence that is going to be done to existing boundaries. Many people who to-day believe themselves safe may find themselves in difficulty once consolidation gets under way. How long is the farming community on the borders of the reserves to be asked to continue to endure the evasiveness of this Government, this Government who seems to have no regard for the inevitable effect of the decisions it is taking, decisions which are affecting the lives of very many people in the Republic at the present time.

We heard in the President’s address last Friday that the same restrictions were to be applied to Europeans in Bantu areas as to Bantu in European areas. One can well imagine with what concern that was heard by those who believe they will be affected as well as those who are at present in the black areas. I think the Prime Minister owes the public a very clear statement on that because an unjust law applied to the Bantu in White areas remains an unjust law if it is applied to Whites in Bantu areas. In other words, injustice is not cured by extending it. I think we should know exactly what the position is and exactly what is meant by that statement. We know that the determination of the final boundaries of the so-called Bantu areas is essential if the Prime Minister is serious about his own policy. Development of the Bantu areas cannot be fully undertaken before their boundaries are known and that development in itself is well behind schedule. Let us look at what has happened in that regard. As early as 1950 the Government appointed the Tomlinson Commission to advise them on how the socioeconomic development of the Bantu areas as an essential part of the whole scheme should be achieved. That Commission reported in 1954 that the development programme which it recommended must be tackled as an “act of faith” and there was a sense of urgency about its report, a sense of urgency which found its way into the debate here in the House of Assembly when the present Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Native Affairs, made it clear that while the Government rejected certain aspects of the report, it was nevertheless prepared to spend money on the main proposals of the commission, namely that the reserves be developed. Indeed he committed his Government to the implementation of the main recommendations of the Report when he said this (Col. 5298, vol. 91)—

He was referring to the policy planned by the Tomlinson Commission insofar as it was accepted by the Government. Then he posed the following question—(Col. 5299.)

We know the Tomlinson Commission itself recommended as a matter of urgency the expenditure of R20,000,000 a year for ten years on special development projects. That was in 1954—seven years ago. Today we are faced with more and more people asking impatiently “Where are those Bantustans?” “Give me two years and I will show you a new South Africa” said Mr. de Wet Nel, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, to the Free State Congress of the Nationalist Party on the 29 October 1958. Two years and 361 days later he again spoke and then he said “in the next five years the Government would show the world how much in deadly earnest they were about separate development”. In the meantime, Sir, nothing has happened. At this rate the idea of separate development is going to outdo the Press Commission as a national monument; in fact, I think there are many people to-day who are thinking of it as the tombstone of the Nationalist Party. Dr. Anton Rupert, in the Cape Times of the 5 December 1961, urged the Government to get on with the job in these words—

Nevertheless, he added, in a restrained criticism of the Government—

Something the Government will not concede. We had a strongly worded leader in the Burger of last week to this effect—

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that even those sympathetic to the Prime Minister give him a maximum of five years to show that this policy can work and to prove himself. The Government can no longer take refuge in excuses that it has not got public opinion, in the sense of the electorate which put it into Parliament, behind it. All it is asked to do is to deliver the goods. But are they doing it? Dr. Norval, the Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries said this, in expressing his doubts—

As this Government is doing. They cannot progress on their own without the knowledge, and capital investment from outside. We had a warning only the week before last from a leading economist, Prof. Hobart Houghton, that unless industries are urgently established in the border areas, the new urban centres which the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is creating in the Reserves, will become nothing but slums “littered by fragments of broken families and oppressed by poverty”. Prof. Houghton knows what he is talking about. He spent his life watching development in the Native reserves: he has a very intimate knowledge of them. The Tomlinson plan envisaged the removal of about two million Bantu out of agriculture and placing them in other occupations. Prof. Houghton points out that this is a colossal task, one that will require the energy of Alexander the Great, the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.

And all they have is Frankie Waring!

Nevertheless, Sir, the elementary problem is the basic problem of combating poverty. That is the problem that this Government must be prepared to tackle and solve or else abandon its plans for separate development. It is not a problem unique to South Africa, it is a problem with which every country with underdeveloped people has had to be prepared to grapple. It has been the subject of endless enquiry by international bodies and in consequence it is possible, because of those inquiries, to judge the progress which this Government has made against what could have been done had they really made an effort. It is as easy an assessment as that.

The Prime Minister, through his own choice, has taken on more than just the alleviation of poverty and increasing of employment in depressed areas. He has taken on the job of creating a new concept of life for the people of South Africa. He must make those Bantu areas so self-reliant, so economically buoyant, so disciplined and trained as to prevent another Congo or other Congos when they are granted their independence. He also wants to undertake an even more onerous task. He is committed to plans of development in the reserves to absorb not only the existing population but also to absorb a large part of the millions of Bantu who must be drawn out of secure employment elsewhere and settled in the reserves if his plan for separate development is going to work. In other words, plans for employment in the reserves must take account of mass immigration back into the reserves on a scale almost unheard of in the present-day world. It is for this reason particularly that I was astonished to hear the State President in his opening speech, expressing the views of the Government, reiterating the belief in the soundness of apartheid as the only solution to our race problems and after stressing the importance of economic development of each group, make the following announcement:

Don’t they realise that under this Government ours is a problem not only of gradually raising the living standards of our people in an integrated economy? It is a policy of separate development, involving eventually a revolution in our way of life, mass changes in population location, wholesale adjustments to changing patterns in industry, even a tremendous impact upon our agricultural and domestic life because of the changes in the supply of labour that will be available to us. What this Government has committed us to do, Sir, is something very much more difficult to digest than the ordinary economic diet of a normally progressive economy. Take the plans for development in other parts of the world, such as the Vanoni plan in Southern Italy, the development of the Philippines, the plans in South America, the plans for dealing with depressed areas in England, to mention only a few outside the organised Communist countries. None of these plans for dealing with depressed areas or the relief of unemployment are complicated by restrictions on movement of the population. The Vanoni plan in Southern Italy, for example, is a determined attempt to save Southern Italy from continued chronic depression. But the people living there are free to move into the Northern areas if they can get work there as they have done through the years. In fact, in spite of the colossal expenditure, in spite to a large extent, of the success of the Vanoni plan, we find that in the last year 70,000 families from the south settled in Milan alone. In this country movement away from the reserves is restricted already. If the Prime Minister’s plan is to be carried out it must be restricted very much more severely otherwise, Sir, he cannot be serious about separate development.

After 14 years of vacillation and uncertainty and contradictory statements from even members of the Prime Minister’s own Cabinet, one is left with a feeling of doubt and uncertainty. Nevertheless, let me try to outline in my own words, as I understand it, the objectives of this policy of separation and I hope the Prime Minister will correct me if he thinks I am wrong or if he feels I am being unfair to him. [Laughter.] I am not like the hon. members over there who are laughing so happily. I hate engaging in an argument on facts over which we are not agreed. They like to twist the facts to their own liking …

Order!

I beg your pardon, Sir. They like to adapt the facts to their own understanding and their own arguments.

In simple terms I believe that the people of South Africa understand the policy of separate development as enunciated by this Government to mean, in so far as the Bantu people and the Native people at any rate are concerned, to go as far as possible towards concentrating them in their own areas with the White people in theirs, to separate territorially as far as possible in all spheres, the interests of each group. Without perhaps having any notion as to time, the public believe and are entitled to believe that the stage will be reached where the present flow of Natives to the European areas will be reversed, and that a further stage would then not be far off. I do not think that is being unfair, Sir. I think that is putting it in its simplest terms. As far as I remember, the Government committed itself further by welcoming in the White Paper, when the Tomlinson Commission’s report was discussed, the following statement—

This to my knowledge, Sir, is the only authentic unrepudiated statement of a time-table by this Government during the period that it and its predecessors have been in power. And time limits are important. All the plans I have referred to earlier have time limits. When the Government gives a blueprint for plans covering a specific number of years with objects and commitments and national responsibilities set out in detail, people know where they stand, and if after the lapse of a certain time they compare what has been achieved with what they have been told will be achieved, and the first does not measure up to the second, then heads roll, Mr. Speaker, then somebody is responsible, then either the plans are abandoned or a new course is adopted because it is realised that the Government cannot keep its word. What is the position in South Africa?

This Government rejected many of the basic principles involved in that blueprint prepared by the Tomlinson Commission. It wanted then, as it does now, to have its cake and to eat it. It accepted apartheid. That was the only answer to South Africa’s race problems, but it shied at the implications of what was involved. It is not pleasant for a Government to ask the people for more money—plenty of money. It is not pleasant to have to ask them to give up ground that may never be returned to the people of South Africa. It is not pleasant to have to ask them to do with less Black labour in their homes, their factories, their mines or their farms. These are unpleasant things for a government to have to do, and in spite of the fact that this Government claims that it has to be done if its policy is to be carried out, up to now it has just not had the guts to carry out those plans. What do we get from the hon. the Prime Minister, the man who was at one time Minister of Native Affairs and who handled the report of the Tomlinson Commission himself? He tells us repeatedly, “I won’t be rushed into fantastic expenditure. The whole thing is going to take time”. But his plan is fantastic, Mr. Speaker. If it is going to be carried out, it is going to involve fantastic sums of expenditure. Here he is digging in his heels because he is afraid to put his feet on that hard, stony up-hill path which he knows is the root of the plan of his Government. He is not prepared to commit his Government in practice to carrying out what was once a political propaganda stunt and must now either be proved or abandoned. I believe he stands there digging in his heels, with a rapidly growing number of his people behind him pushing in vigorously from behind, with world opinion tugging at his coat-tails, while relentless time is marching on, and the time he has for carrying out this plan is getting shorter and shorter. I believe he himself is appalled by the gargantuan appetite of the monster to which his party has given birth.

We know that in the Department of Bantu Administration there is a dedicated body of workers who have given their lives to carrying out the policies of the Government of the day, men who are acting in good faith, in devotion to a cause. But I believe to-day they are the victims of what Paul Giniewski, in his book “Bantustans: The Trek Towards the Future”, calls “the terrible simplifiers”. These are the people who dream of separate development, who in their imagination can shape it as they will, but who lack the courage to accept the consequences of their dreams. Mr. Giniewski quotes a member of the Department of Bantu Administration as saying—

Now, Sir, are we as an Opposition being unfairly critical of this Government? Is the world being unfair to them when it doubts whether they really have a policy to carry out? I believe not, Sir—not when one bears in mind the magnitude of the task which stands before the Prime Minister if he is to carry out this policy of separate development. I believe that what has not been realized is that in carrying out this policy time is the Achilles’ heel. Time is the Achilles’ heel because 300 years ago separate development would have been simple. It would have presented few problems. We might have got evolution in separate groups and in separate states. That might even have developed naturally. After a century it became more difficult. To-day it requires a superhuman effort; to-morrow it may be impossible. Do you realize, Sir, that in 1928 there were 101 Bantu for every 100 Whites in the four big industrial complexes of South Africa? In 1953 there were 172, and in 1961, 200. Do you realize that in less than 40 years there will be 780 Bantu for every 100 Whites in Johannesburg unless the tide of history is checked? I quote figures from Giniewski’s book, a supporter of Bantustans, the confidant of the Government, whose book, I believe, was distributed by the State Information Department. So far the hon. the Prime Minister has been playing Canute to the tides of history in that regard.

The Tomlinson Commission showed how urgent the situation was. In 1921 in our big urban centres there were 424,000 Whites and 439,000 Bantu. In 1960 there were 2,454,000 Whites and 3,242,000 Bantu. In other words, in the period 1946-60 the number of Bantu increased by 87 per cent, and 37 per cent for the Whites. The Bantu population of our existing urban areas is increasing by about 85,000 a year. Members who have studied the figures of the last census will see that for the first time in our history in the Cape Province there are more Bantu outside the Transkei than in it, after nine years of this Bantustan Government.

What does further delay mean, Mr. Speaker? It means, firstly, an increase in the numbers who are becoming permanently urbanized. It means, secondly, further soil erosion in the reserves, which probably can never be remedied. It means that the chances of the Government of ever reaching its once-stated and seldom-referred-to-again target of equalizing the number of Blacks and Whites in White areas in 50 years’ time is just as remote a possibility as that the first man to reach the moon will be a South African.

Let’s have a closer look at this population target and see what it means. In the year 2000, according to the demographers of the Tomlinson Commission, we will have a population of about 31,000,000 people, about 4,000,000 Europeans and about 21,000,000 Blacks. If the Prime Minister’s policy is to be carried out, there must be provision in the reserves for 15,000,000 Bantu. The Prime Minister’s problem is, if he wants to reach his target, that he must create a condition in the reserves which will support a total of 16,000,000 people between now and the year 2000. In other words, he has to take urgent steps not only to find work, advantageous work, for the existing population of the reserves and their natural increase, but also for the natural increase of the approximately 6,000,000 Bantu at present in what are described as the White areas. I wonder whether it is realized what the extent of the investment is that is required for a project of that kind. It was put to this House some years ago by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). He pointed out that if our total population increased by 250,000 per annum, 150,000 would be Native. If then we want to restrict the increase in our Bantu population to the reserves, we would have to create work annually for 150,000 additional Natives in those areas. Since it will cost as much to create a job for a Native as for a White man, it means that we will have to devote more than half of our total annual investment of £500,000,000 or R1,000,000,000 to the reserves. In other words, if the Prime Minister’s objective is to be reached, we would have to spend approximately R500,000,000, or £250,000,000, on developing the reserves each year. One can put it another way, Sir. If we continue to invest £500,000,000 a year in the White areas and only a few million pounds in the Bantu areas, most of the Bantu will still have to come out of the reserves to the White rural and industrial areas. If you want apartheid, you have got to undertake a massive investment of capital in order to ensure that there will be work for those people, and that capital will have to come almost entirely from the White man, because they are the only people who have the capital.

Very recent reports from the International Labour Organization show that in countries where under-employment is developing almost always the cause has been inadequate investment, and how great that investment can be and should be is shown by this Vanoni plan in Southern Italy, which I mentioned earlier. There you have to do with a population far less handicapped by ignorance, far more experienced in industrial work, far more accustomed to taking advantage of economic aid than our Bantu population. The scheme involves the building of roads, the establishment of industries, the provision of water and power, and it has cost to date R2,000,000,000—not R2,000,000 but R2,000,000,000. Employment has been created for 700,000 people, i.e. at the rate of about 140,000 people a year in agricultural industry and other activities, or an average of approximately R2,800 per person. I know there have been complaints that the scheme was extravagant; it has different objectives, but if you compare that expenditure with the expenditure we had in establishing our own industry at Zwelitsha I think, Sir, you will realize that is not an overestimate. There you had 2,000 Xhosa turning out 23,000,000 yards of printed cloth a year, but the factory cost £4,250,000, employing about 2,200 people, a cost of about R4,000 per head, and the basic minimum which this Government has to place fairly quickly if it is to get 2,000,000 people off the land in the reserves, is something like 300,000. Work out what that means, Sir.

As against that objective, what has been accomplished in regard to the development of the reserves? Remember, Sir, that this Government is not just trying to improve the standard of living. It is trying to create independent Bantu areas and not just contributing to higher living standards. Let us see what has been achieved so far. The world is at last beginning to realize that for a decent system of self-government on democratic principles you will have to ensure that you have in their ranks the echelons of trained and experienced administrators who will make democracy work at every level of government. Even the U.N. in its reports to-day are talking of the “infra-structure” of administrators being required before a country can govern itself properly. Now, Sir, where is that infrastructure in the reserves at present? Or is it that the absence of such infra-structure is the true reason why the Government dare not create really democratic institutions in the reserves? Is that the reason why wherever they have created Bantu authorities, regional or territorial, the real power is in the hands of the White people still? The Government talks about the chiefs being the repositories of tribal authority. Is that why a chief cannot leave his district without the permission of the White authorities? Is that why he can be deposed by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in the interest of the entire Bantu people, and he is the sole judge of what that interest is? You see, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a proper foundation of administrative experience, any talk of independence for these areas is either foolhardy or dangerous.

Hear, hear! [Interjection.]

Hon. members laugh, but look at what is happening in Tanganyika. The former Prime Minister, Julius Nyerere, regarded as a moderate, welcomed by the Western Powers—how long did he last? Seven weeks. I want to ask these gentlemen something. How long do they think their stooges are going to last in the independent Bantu states? Do they think they will have people there whom they have trained in this way?

How long will you last as Leader of the Opposition?

I want hon. members opposite to remember that on the Government’s own showing, the development of the reserves has been divided into three parts. The one is agricultural development, secondly the diversification of the economy outside agriculture, and thirdly industrial development in the border areas. We know what the difficulties are of agricultural development in the reserves. We know how tribal tradition and old customs resist change. I believe the sacred cows of India already consume more food in one year than the total supplied by the United States to India out of their surpluses. The Prime Minister has to face up to that as a very serious stumbling-block, but I also know that if the proper steps are to be taken, first of all the surplus labour will have to come off the soil and that will mean the removal of about 2,000,000 people. Secondly, farming units will have to be reorganized into economic units, and that will be the end of one man, one plot; and, thirdly, if the Tomlinson Commission is to be followed, the entire reserves will have to be declared betterment areas, and that will call for much more determination than this Government has been able to show at present. What do we find so far? Only 26 per cent of the reserves is free from erosion. Two out of every three cattle that died in the reserves from 1946 to 1952 died from causes other than slaughter. Over 50 per cent of stock deaths was due to poverty, to hunger and to thirst. That makes it quite clear that as far as the re-employment of those 2,000,000 people is concerned, the whole matter is bound up with the diversification of the economy.

Now, I want to challenge the Prime Minister to give us the true picture of just how far he has been able to get with the basic fundamental and essential reorganization of Bantu farming on an economic footing. I say that for all practical purposes he has got nowhere, and I say that I am not interested in the individual good crop here or the wonderful mealie fields the Minister of Bantu Administration has seen there. I am interested in the over-all picture, and I want to refer him to the report made by the observers of the S.A. Bureau of Race Relations, who made an extended tour lasting several months of the reserves. This is what they say—

I want to challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to deny the accuracy of this report and to tell us how far he and his Government have got in developing these areas and what their plans are for their agricultural development in the future. It is quite clear that the entire future of those areas is going to be dependent upon a diversification of their industries.

Now, what has the Government done? The Tomlinson Commission found that they would have to find jobs for 50,000 people a year in the reserves, and that has nothing to do with those in border industries. The border industries were supposed to deal with the 300,000 who were going to be removed from agriculture. They have to find jobs for 50,000 applicants every year outside our agriculture in the reserves; 20,000 of those 50,000 jobs annually would have to be found in secondary industry, and it was believed that the remainder would find work in agriculture and tertiary industry. That is the target that is accepted. What would be the cost of that programme?

The Tomlinson Commission reckoned that £30,000,000 would be required for this purpose only. The Prime Minister has been inclined to be sceptical of so large an amount, but how can it be so inaccurate when we have experience in other parts of the world of what development has cost? We know that to place one worker in industry on the whole has cost about R2,000, so we should look forward to an expenditure of approximately R60,000,000 for industrial development inside the reserves alone. May I state, for purposes of comparison, that we spent R5,250,000 per annum on the entire development of the reserves over the last six years. What does the Prime Minister propose for the future?

Now, let us compare the aim of the industrial employment programme against what I know of the present achievements for diversification of employment in the reserves so far, and let me say that I await with confidence the Prime Minister’s disclosures in regard to the spectacular achievements I know nothing about. Let me say that this is the information we have been able to glean so far. Between 1952 and 1959, 22 Bantu became employed in a small factory within the reserves, and a few more in three sawmills; 1,174 were set up as general dealers and 223 in other independent commercial activities. But we are looking for 20,000 jobs a year. In reply to a question in the Assembly in March 1960, the Minister of Bantu Administration stated that 22 Bantu rural villages had been established, only four with more than 1,000 resident families; four had no families, and seven had fewer than 80 families. Businesses had been established by the Bantu in ten villages (25 businesses in all). Another 62 were under consideration. As for the Bantu Investment Corporation, by March 1961 it had received 1,000 applications from Bantu in the reserves for loans and loans totalling R283,000 had been granted, mostly to finance retail businesses. But the Government is supposed to be finding 20,000 new jobs per annum for Bantu in the reserves, and I say this is a puny effort, and it will continue to be puny as long as the Prime Minister sticks to his plan of not allowing White capital and White initiative and White entrepreneurs to enter the reserves. I must say how pleased I am to find that I am supported in this view by one of South Africa’s most prominent industrialists, Dr. Anton Rupert, in his speech to the Pretoria University, when he said—

Dr. Rupert went on to advocate industrial partnership, ensuring that they could take up to 50 per cent of the shares in industrial undertakings, and he said this—

I wonder what a man like that could do, and others like him, if they had an opportunity for development in those reserves under a United Party Government which understood the matter. [Interjections.]

I have given the House all the information available to us in regard to the diversification of the economies in the reserves. The hon. the Prime Minister will have to fill in the details about his comprehensive plans for the future and what is going to be done by the non-existent public services, what he is going to do about roads, railways, water-works, generating plants, and I hope he will give particulars of the number of new industries, the real industries, not cottage basket-weaving and clay-pot manufacturing that have always been there. I think he must also tell us something about the rate at which he will technically train people in the reserves to take their place in industry, because he knows full well that one of the biggest handicaps in establishing industry in all parts of the world is the lack of education and training.

Now I come to the third leg of the Government’s development plans, the border development idea. I want to say at once that I am not against the decentralization of industry for economic reasons; provided it is guided in accordance with the dictates of economic principles I have no objection at all to decentralization of industries. But as a solution to the establishment of independent Bantustans, I write if off completely, and I shall tell you why. It is either a repetition of the so-called evils of integration, only in another place, or it is an extension of the boundaries of the reserves by about 30 miles round the perimeter. But it is no solution to the diversification of the economy of the Bantu reserves. Even if we were to agree with the Prime Minister that it did afford a solution, what has the Government done in that regard? What has it done to show that it is getting on with the job, and what are its plans for the future? We know that border development can create employment in the reserves, but what do we find? The Economic Advisory Council reported in September last year that 54 applications for establishing industries in the border areas were dealt with. Of these, 32 were not supported, 10 were approved in principle, six were being investigated and assistance, the nature and extent of which was not disclosed, had been granted to three. These three were all textile projects involving a total investment of R1,800,000 and expected to provide jobs for 30 Whites and 880 Bantu. The ten projects approved in principle will involve a capital outlay in excess of R5,000,000 and are expected to provide work for 130 Whites, 12 Coloureds and 1,550 Africans. Now, that is fine as far as it goes, Sir, but we must not forget that Zwelitsha already employs over 2,000 Africans and that has made little or no difference to the economy of the reserves; and we must not forget that the employment target aimed at by the Tomlinson Commission was one which would involve the taking into employment in those areas of close on 300,000 people. I say that the Government has just been scratching on the surface, that it has been playing with the problem, but has been making no effort to carry it out, and then I think, Sir, you will agree that we have the right to know from the Government what it is going to do over the next five years. We have projects employing 1,550 Bantu approved in principle, and we know how regrettably often there is a notoriously wide gap between what is approved in principle and what is carried out in practice. Well, Mr. Speaker, there you have it. Where is the proof of the determination to get on with the job? Where is the proof that this Government can get on with the job? Where is the proof that it knows how to deal with this problem of economic integration on a vast scale in our major urban areas? There is no natural phenomenon that will stop the flow of the Bantu to the White areas while there is work here for them to do. In fact, all the impulses are in the opposite direction, swelling the tide to the cities into an ever-growing flood. Having regard to the size of the problem with which we are confronted, whereas to-day we have about 200 Blacks as against every 100 Whites in our big urban areas, we realize that in 35 years, if the tide is not turned, we will have over 700 as opposed to 100. But the whole gravamen of my charge against the Prime Minister is that he has done little or nothing to stem that tide. If one leans over backwards to be generous to him, you cannot estimate less than 6,000,000 Blacks still permanently in the European areas, 6,000,000 Blacks who in 35 or 40 years will have been there for three to five generations, whose children would have been educated there, whose parents and whose grandchildren will have been there, will have been educated in those areas, will probably never have seen the Reserves, will know nothing about them, will have little knowledge of tribal life, will have been taking the jobs vacated by their fathers in industries, will have invested their money in homes and insurance policies and undertakings in the White areas. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, how at the end of that period has this Government or any other Government any hope of persuading them that they belong somewhere else and trying to send them back into other areas? There is room and there will be room for many years for migrant labourers. They fulfil a function; but the trouble with the Prime Minister is that he wants to make every Bantu labourer in the urban areas a migrant labourer, but he does not say where he is going to go to if he treks out of the White areas because there is nowhere for him to go in the present state of over-population of the Reserves as they exist at the present time. I want to say this, Sir: We must know what the future attitudes of the Prime Minister are in this regard, because unless those attitudes are clear, unless there is a change of emphasis in this matter, we run the danger of developing in these urban industrial areas and the White areas a large section of the population who will become hostile towards the Europeans because they will see no chance for their own development, no chance for developing their own political aspirations and no future for themselves or their children. Are we to go ahead blindly without getting the blue print from the hon. the Prime Minister? If I am wrong and he has no plans other than those I have outlined, if the Government means to give these people a stake in the area in which they live, a reason to be loyal, decent and hardworking citizens, then I hope the Prime Minister will tell us that to-day. Let him tell us also at the same time that will be the death-knell of separate development as outlined by his Government up to this time.

I come now to the third and fourth streams of the Government’s four-stream policy, namely the Indians and the Coloured people. The Indians were nowhere mentioned in the State President’s address, and in respect of the Coloureds we were merely referred to the Prime Minister’s statement to the Coloured Affairs Council on 12 December, last year. Now, while a reading of the State President’s speech makes it clear that the removal of domination and discrimination applies only in respect of his statements to the Bantu, I cannot imagine that the Government intends treating the Coloured people more harshly than the Bantu. And indeed, Sir, in the last Parliament the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement about the Cape Coloured people, indicating that discrimination in respect of the Coloureds would disappear by the creation for them of a state within a state. On that occasion he left a doubt in one’s mind as to what the future was of the Representatives of the Cape Coloured people sitting in this House. He left a doubt whether they would retain their position in the event of additional powers being given to a new Council for Coloured People. In his address to the Council for Coloured Affairs he was ominously silent on the future of the Representatives of the Cape Coloured people, and he suggested that in due course the Minister of Coloured Affairs would be in much the same position as the Minister of External Affairs in respect of the relations between the Coloured authority and the Government. The whole trend of his speech created the impression in my mind that their fate was sealed. I had no doubt after reading that speech that the Representatives of the Cape Coloured people in the House had no part in the Prime Minister’s vision for the future of the Cape Coloured people. Unless the hon. gentleman is prepared this afternoon categorically to deny that in this debate and to tell us what his plans are for the future in connection with those Representatives of the Coloured people, then I shall have the right and the public will have the right to assume that they are going to disappear in due course, and if I am right I will not be surprised to find that the argument will be used that the proposed additional powers over education and local affairs to be given to a more representative Coloured Council justify this further deprivation of rights.

Do you not want it?

I am not at all surprised at the hon. member’s resiling. It seems to me that he has let the cat out of the bag. He is implying that he does want the removal of the Representatives of the Cape Coloured people. I hope, Sir, that the Prime Minister is either going to confirm or repudiate that very talkative member. I really doubt whether the Prime Minister could believe that he will improve relations with the members of this essentially Westernized group if he is going to deny them a say in the Parliament which controls their destinies in respect of the really important things of life like the freedom of the individual, making peace, declaring war, imposing taxation and things of that kind. He has told us that the Council will be bigger and more representative, so that it will be able to carry out its duties better. Nowhere has he told us that the Government is prepared to hand over the power of nominating the majority of the members of that Council. Nowhere has he said that there is going to be a majority of elected members in that Council in the future. Sir, I want to ask the hon. gentleman a few questions about this plan. Does he really believe that the present Council for Coloured Affairs has been a success; does he really think that it carries the confidence of the Cape Coloured people? Can he believe that the Council, the majority of whose members are not elected by the Cape Coloured people themselves but are nominated by the Government, will easily or speedily earn the co-operation and confidence of those same people even in the limited sphere in which they are going to operate and legislate? Surely the fact that the election of elected members to that present Council was virtually boycotted by the Coloured community must have taught the hon. gentleman something. How, Sir, is discrimination to be removed and the moral basis of the Prime Minister’s policy established if only limited functions are to be given to this Council for Coloured Affairs and there is no division of function between the Central Parliament of the Republic and this Council when the Central Parliament of the Republic controls all matters of common interest to Coloureds and Europeans and all the really important matters in their lives? There are one or two other things I want to know. For how long is the Press going to continue to be excluded from meetings of this Council except when the Prime Minister or a Minister or a Deputy Minister makes a statement? Will this practice continue even when the Council becomes more representative? Is it not realized that this state of affairs inevitably creates suspicion and lack of confidence? The taxation position too is difficult to understand. The Prime Minister says that there will not be two taxing machines, hence all taxation will be levied by the Central Parliament of the Republic and the Provincial Councils. But what happens if the taxes paid directly or indirectly by the Coloured people and ascertained by some hitherto unrevealed formula are inadequate for the essential services of the Coloureds, services like education, hospitals and health services? What is going to happen about it? Are they to go without them? Are they to be subsidized by the Central Government? If they are to be subsidized, is there going to be an upper limit on the amount as there is in the case of Native education? Are the Coloureds to contribute nothing to national services like defence in an emergency? In voicing these criticisms I do not overlook the advantages to the Coloured people of the Coloured Development Corporation. I know how grateful many of them will be for financial assistance to establish their own businesses, but I wonder whether those funds would not have been available from the ordinary financial institutions had the lot of the Cape Coloured people not been made so uncertain by this Government and the application of the laws to the Cape Coloured people.

A hard fact which we cannot get past is that sociologically, economically and on religious grounds the lot of the Cape Coloured people has become so closely intertwined with that of the European that any movement in the direction which the Prime Minister outlined will require a political miracle if it is not to create hard feelings and lessen the feeling of goodwill between European and Cape Coloured. The application of the Group Areas Act, job reservation, and the removal of their political rights have done much to undermine that goodwill already. If the hon. the Prime Minister is not very careful he may make a reality of the danger of the Cape Coloured community making common cause with Black nationalism. I do hope that the Prime Minister will be prepared this afternoon to take us fully into his confidence in respect of this section of the population and outline his plans for their future in the new Republic, but I want to warn him that any plan which denies these people their Western character and refuses them representation of some kind in this Parliament, cannot succeed.

Now, Sir, one thing has been particularly noticeable about the Government’s attitude to the Asiatic or Indian people, and that has been the complete lack of policy statements in respect of those people. I know there has been talk of a Council for Asiatic Affairs and the possibility of their being treated by the Government in much the same way as they are treating the Cape Coloured people, but there has never been clarity. In the meantime this population, which, in many areas, is in danger of losing its traditional means of livelihood because of the application of the Group Areas Act, is left in uncertainty although the Government seems to have accepted at long last that it forms a permanent part of the population of the Republic. The position is unsound economically, unstable politically, embarrassing internationally. I think the Prime Minister owes it to the public this afternoon to state his plans in respect of that section of the community at least over the next five years.

Now, I have dealt with the difficulties involved in the planning and cost of the Government’s separate development, but I believe it is the overall picture of our national economy that might eventually spell the sudden doom of separate development. I know the difficulties which the hon. gentleman has had in respect of the balance of payments. I do not propose to deal with the economic issues involved, but I may say that as far as I can see into the future, it seems to me that the Prime Minister’s plans are going to lead to reduced economic activity, a poorer South Africa, and falling standards of living for all our people.

The last question I want to pose is this, whether the sacrifices that a policy of this kind will impose upon the public is going to improve our international relations. To me it seems that whether the Government succeeds in creating viable homelands or not, they will be placing themselves and the Republic in the position where they have given certain promises to the Bantu people in respect of independence from which it will be difficult to resile, and in fact we may find ourselves with independent states on our frontiers which, because of their very weakness, are a source of danger to us in that they may be looking for assistance elsewhere to countries unfriendly to the Republic. I need not stress that the creation of a number of independent states on our frontiers will multiply the opportunities at present offered to those anxious to oppose the policy of the Government by devious means to escape into foreign countries, and we may find incidents of the kind so well illustrated by the Ganyile case with all its attendant implications and embarrassments arising more often. We must ask ourselves too whether the application of a policy of this kind can and well within a reasonable time bring some solution in respect of the South West African position. As I have indicated earlier, the Government has so far failed to convince the nations of the world that it is moving away from discrimination and domination, and it is quite clear that whether or not we regard the South West African issue as being sub judice, the nations of the world are not prepared to accept that proposition and have taken a decision involving certain action before 1 May.

What do you know?

I am waiting to see the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) fighting for South West Africa. I believe that this is a very dangerous position, and one which we saw developing some time ago, and that is why I made a public offer to the Government that there should be consultation on this issue in the hope of a bipartisan approach. There was a reaction from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs within 36 hours, turning me down flat. Nevertheless, a few days later he made a statement saying that I had approached him in the wrong way and I repeated the offer on a public platform indicating that I was prepared to consult on this issue in the hope that if we were fully informed it might be possible to work out a bipartisan plan. That offer was ignored, and I think I am in a position and this side of the House is in a position to say to the Government, “You hold the sole responsibility for what has happened”. It is due to their attitude over the past 13 years, it is due to their failure to defend South West Africa and its view at the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations that this situation has developed, and I now have the right to ask the Government what their plans are for the future and how they are going to meet the situation. It is quite clear to me that whatever the Government’s plans may be in respect of the Bantu population, unless there are revolutionary changes in respect of their treatment of the Cape Coloured people they will have difficulty in getting even the nations of the Western world on their side. How much easier the position of the Prime Minister would have been had he been defending a policy of ordered advance towards a federation of the races in South Africa. involving a share in the Government for each section of the population, accepting safeguards to protect the rights of individuals, groups and geographical units within the framework of a society organized for the maintenance of civilized standards. How much easier he would have made it for our friends to defend us and for us to maintain the friendship of the nations of the Western world. [Interjections.] I am not talking of the communists or the Afro-Asian bloc, I am talking of the nations of the Western world who are our proved friends of the past. Instead, Sir, we are suffering the consequences of the policy which the hon. gentleman is afraid to carry out because of the sacrifices it will involve. Because he is not carrying it out we are being judged not only for the weakness of that policy but also because in the eyes of the world we are being insincere.

It is for that reason that this call to the Government to reveal its plans is so important, and it is for that reason also that the Government deserves to forfeit the confidence of this House.

I second the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we are living in grave times but it is not only we in South Africa who are doing so. The times are grave for the whole world and the majority of countries are affected. When one is living in such times one expects not only the Government of the country but also its opponents to be fully conscious of their responsibility. One expects, too, that when an Opposition finds it necessary to sit in judgment upon the actions of the Government, it will at the same time be prepared to say what it would do and to apply exactly the same tests to its proposed actions as it attempts to apply to those of its opponents. Then the voters would be able to judge whether they had anything to gain in relation to all these various difficulties by putting the alternative party into power. In fact such a test presented itself recently. On that occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was unable to find a way of escape, as he did to-day, by trying to say, however limited his exposition was, what he and his party are aiming at. What did this country’s voters do? When they were faced with the contrast between the Opposition’s so-called race-federation scheme with its obvious consequences and the policy of separation and all the difficulties that it has to overcome, they rejected the Opposition and its scheme without hesitation and more strongly than they have ever done. Consequently, what could the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do to-day? He could not even move a motion of no confidence in this side. All that he could do was to deliver destructive criticism. From beginning to end there was not a single constructive word. If I were to take his arguments one by one, I would not only be in a position to answer them but I would be in a position to prove, in relation to what his Government would do if it were in power, how each of these dilemmas and problems would descend upon him with doubled fury. And that is the important point in connection with the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which I wish to stress, namely, that it was negative from beginning to end, that it poses all manner of problems many of which indeed exist—I do not deny it—but which can be met and overcome. They are problems, moreover, which would not be diminished in the slightest degree if he himself had to face them. That is why I say—although I do not want to go very fully into it—that either his arguments were based upon wrong premises or his arguments were purely destructive or could equally well be brought to bear against his own policy.

Allow me to give a few examples. He has said that I am in a state of consternation. I certainly do regard the country’s position as serious and I am definitely perturbed about it. I would be stupid if, at the present time, I did not feel perturbed, just as any ruler of almost any state must be perturbed. But I would be infinitely more concerned about the future of the country and the nation if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were in power with his policy of race federation as the road along which South Africa was to be guided. I should be extremely concerned and perturbed because then I would be able to see no future for South Africa, not only as far as the Black man was concerned, about whose future he has to-day expressed his concern, but also for the White man who must inevitably suffer extinction under his rule.

Towards the end of his speech he referred to certain dangers facing us in the international field, which he said he would gladly help to solve. After his analysis of the nature of the dangers and in the light of the demands being made by the Afro-Asian States in respect of South West Africa in relation to the Republic of South Africa itself and bearing in mind the attitude taken up by the Western nations in their effort to draw the Afro-Asian States towards them we must ask: How would he save us? By trying to force us into surrender? If we do not give in to all the demands made by those peoples—and their demand, ultimately, is as plain as anything, namely, a political demand and one political demand only, that is, “one man, one vote”, nothing else will satisfy them—then the Western nations, by supporting more limited demands, would not be able to satisfy the Afro-Asian countries. Must we make concessions in spite of this, or must we stand our ground and also insist upon justice for the Whites? But we do strive in ways other than those which they dictate, for justice for each racial group, including the Whites. I say we have no choice; we cannot follow the course of surrender to the demand which they make upon South Africa. I need not elaborate upon this because in the President’s address which, as everybody knows, embodies the attitude of the Government and which is drafted by the Prime Minister with his Cabinet, it is abundantly clear what we stand for and between which things we have to choose. Let me therefore issue this warning here: Do not try, with pious words of that sort about offers of help, to gain the support of the public. Let us rather openly admit that we are all against “one man, one vote” insofar as the Republic and South West Africa are concerned and that we cannot therefore satisfy either of these states.

I wish to refer also to a few of the hon. member’s other arguments. He has alleged that we are doing nothing for the non-Whites in regard to housing. I would like his attention because I want to contend that he has made a false allegation here, although not deliberately. I should like therefore to correct him in this respect. He has alleged that as far as the non-Whites are concerned we have accomplished nothing positive with regard to housing.

Generally speaking.

That certainly waters his argument down a bit. Nevertheless, I want to state very clearly that we have on a large scale and in a number of different directions performed positive actions as far as the non-Whites are concerned. Just think of the increase in the scope for employment and the very much higher levels which have become attainable in many occupations. Think also, for example, of the training which is being given in many more fields than before and in which the facilities are still being expanded. Think also of the new fields of social and health services which have come into being. Think also of the greater expenditure being devoted to those in need of help. In this respect attention is being devoted to each group. Think also of the political developments which have been set in motion or which already exist. Whether hon. members on the other side personally like it or not, the setting up of Bantu authorities is a fundamental development of the utmost importance for all further progressive steps. Then how dare anyone say here that, generally speaking, we have concerned ourselves only with housing, while in a wider field of public life we have cared for the interests of all? That, nevertheless, is the sort of contention of which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so freely delivers himself.

He said that he believed, too, that the Government was afraid to make public any further steps which it proposed to make, and he challenged us in this respect in his motion! However, his challenge is unnecessary. When we want to do something we do not just talk about it, we do it. Some time ago he challenged us to establish a republic and he said we did not honestly mean it when we pleaded for a republic. To-day, however, the republic is there. In the same way he often challenged us and said that we were afraid. But let me once again warn the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: this sort of allegation has never paid him and it will never pay him.

He referred tauntingly to a statement by Minister Nel a few years ago when the latter is alleged to have said: “Give me two years and I will show you what I can do to bring about goodwill and progress as far as the Bantu are concerned.” But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition omitted to say exactly what Minister Nel had said. He said: “Give me two years without continual attacks and obstruction by the Press and the parties …” [Laughter.] … Yes, “by the Press and the parties and without the incitement and without the interference from outside and without the coddling of rebels and agitators! Give me an opportunity, if a change is to be brought about within a short time, to convey without hindrance to the Bantu what opportunities arise from the schemes that we have and then you will see what peace, what order and what co-operation we will be able to obtain.” That was the essential point of his argument. Because that peace and co-operation was not forthcoming, and because hon. members and other persons within our country continually made the most obstinate efforts to thwart every deed and every word and every effort on the part of the Government, the brakes were so strongly applied that one could not attain what one would have attained without those obstructions. That was the essential point of that utterance, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not bring that out in his speech.

Let me analyse another kind of argument. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to a lot of figures and to dangers supposedly threatening us, and he spoke about the fact that the number of Bantu moving to the cities was still increasing. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will remember that since 1948 we have always said that this problem, which has been created during past centuries, cannot be solved within the twinkling of an eye; that people cannot be allowed to succumb to hunger and misery in the reserves; and that it must, therefore, be accepted that the search for work is something to be taken into account. We said that the way in which our whole national industry had been built up was also a fact to be taken into account and that, therefore, if we wanted to move forward without disrupting either our industrial development or that of the Bantu, a series of time-consuming processes would have to be set in motion. The building up of the Bantu homelands, the development of border industries (in spite of the continued opposition to it), the institution of influx control (which had to be exercised, often in the face of opposition from politically hostile city councils), are all processes which of necessity take time. That is why we said from the beginning that we could not envisage the turning point being reached before 1978, but that we would immediately force down the curve of influx into the cities, a curve which had strongly risen under United Party regime, so that the highest point of the curve would drop. It was always stated clearly therefore. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now sought to warn against the dangers that will arise here when at some future stage the ratio of Bantu to Whites in, say, the cities will allegedly be 700 to 100.

From your point of view?

He did not say “from your point of view”, but let me assume that will be so from my point of view. Are they going to be less dangerous, however, from the point of view of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? According to his view the numbers would in any event not be 700 to 100 but 1,000 to 100 or 2,000 to 100 because he would not stringently check the influx. Looked at from his viewpoint of race federation, would such ratios bring about no risk to the White race or to the economy of this country because of the composition of those ruling the country? It is the easiest thing in the world to put forward all sorts of figures as he put them forward and then to infer from those figures that they bring about certain problems. I just want to utter the warning that each of those problems which he contends would face us or White South Africa, would face White South Africa, our country and all of us with more than doubled fury if he were in power with his policy of laissez-faire.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then said that we must also realize the difficulties which the Bantu areas would have to contend with when Bantu without administrative experience came into power and when the Bantu would have to have officials to perform their services in every field, at a time when Bantu with the necessary experience were not available. He said: “Just think of the plight of this Bantu area where that is going to be the position and think of the maladministration in that area.” I do not deny that problems would arise. But what I wish to ask at this point, while I am referring just in passing to his method of arguing, is this: Seeing that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a person who believes in race federation, a person who believes that in those geographical areas they must in fact have a high degree of self-government, because that is why the constitution becomes a “federation”, how is the system of government going to operate in these areas as the Leader of the Opposition visualizes them? Where are the Bantu going to be found under the policy of the Leader of the Opposition to perform the services which have to be performed? Where are the public servants going to be found? And, in addition to that, it must be remembered that they are going to rule with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as his partners! They are going to sit in Parliament with him. They are going to rule with him in that federal Parliament and go into the Cabinet. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks so little of them and their capabilities, where is he going to find those other, even better, men? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must also remember that when he has a federation, he will have to absorb his Black partners into the common public service and into the common army. Since he is running them down, how do hon. members think they are going to fit in there without lowering standards? How are they to fit in without causing difficulties?

When they are, however, led to self-government step by step and are being trained for the tasks in their circumscribed area, then, according to the Leader of the Opposition, they cannot do the work and one cannot train them sufficiently! For the sake of appearances he conjures up tremendous doubts about Bantu capabilities in connection with their own development, but on the other hand he is prepared to assimilate them in a much larger compass and to burden them with far greater duties and responsibilities when he seeks to make use of these people as his partners.

In revealing my own line of thought I shall deal with various other arguments advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Before I proceed, however, I wish to refer to his motion, and I wish to thank him for it. I wish to thank him in spite of the fact that I think that he was slightly unfair in one respect. He was unfair in his reproach that the National Party is not being sufficiently candid in giving details regarding its policy and the implementation of that policy. He accuses us of vagueness. But no one, no party, is more vague regarding its policy than the United Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be able to ascertain that from the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). Let him read her articles in the newspapers. Then he will find out how vague and uncertain his policy really is. The hon. member for Houghton is an interesting test on the question as to which party has the clearest policy. I say that we are as clear in respect of our policy as it is possible to be and the hon. member for Houghton and the Progressive Party are also clear within reasonable limits. But the United Party with its federation policy is vague beyond description. I put it to my hon. friend therefore that his reproach is rather inappropriate. However, in his motion, as he has framed it, there is a good deal which is so comforting that we shall forgive him that. I find it interesting, for example, that it amounts to this, that if certain points, certain details are not given, then only we shall lose the confidence of the public. The implication is quite clear, quite rightly, that at the moment we have the confidence of the people of course and I am glad of his testimony and his admission that he assumes that we have that confidence, and that we shall only forfeit that confidence under certain circumstances. I see my hon. friend shaking his head. But he said quite clearly towards the end of his motion—

We must therefore be enjoying this confidence! I am grateful for that, but I hope that he will also keep the promise which is implicit in his motion and that is the promise that if we on this side do furnish information about these various points (he does not have to agree with it because he says nothing here about the nature of the solution; he only talks about the scope of the information), then we can expect the unique and interesting experience of his withdrawing his motion. If he does not do so, then it means that he has decided beforehand that whatever information we do give, he will continue to persist with what he will then at all costs transform into a motion of no confidence. I think he became slightly confused because that is what he intends doing, but it does not detract from the fact that if he does that, it will mean that, because of his present motion, he will be untrue to himself.

I wish to add something further in connection with the motion itself, and that is that strictly speaking the United Party had no right to move such a motion, because the United Party in principle has adopted a certain attitude in respect of the right of the public to demand a full exposition of policy and of the methods of implementation. It fought the election on the proposition that the United Party would outline its racial federation plan in broad outline, but that it could not supply the details and that this was not necessary and indeed that in respect of many details it depended upon the results of consultation with the non-White groups. The public, the electorate, must trust it in advance and put it into power on a general slogan. Only then would it discuss their wishes with the Indians and with other groups. This would become its policy, or it would put its proposals before the electorate by way of a referendum. In other words, as a matter of principle he took up the attitude that it was unnecessary to disclose all the details in connection with his policy to the electorate or to the House. Yet to-day he comes with a motion in which he demands from us something which he himself says is unnecessary in principle. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not now hide behind the story that they are the Opposition and we the Government. When the electorate has to choose between two possible governments, as they have to do in an election, then it does not matter who is the Government and who is the Opposition. They have to weigh the one against the other and they can do this to some extent because of the clarity that they obtain as a result of the parties’ criticism of each other, but basically they have to make their choice between what each says it will do positively for the country and how it will do it. The Opposition therefore is under an obligation to state its policy clearly just as much as the Government is. If, however, the United Party takes up the attitude that it is not necessary for itself to be explicit, then it has no right to demand a blueprint from us.

I wish to put forward another proposition, and that is that not only does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to know what we intend to do in practice but he continually requires undertakings from us in advance as to what we propose to do in the distant future. He himself is not even prepared to look further ahead than the day when he may come into power, because he is only then going to start to formulate certain parts of his policy! But he expects from us an exposition of our plans for the distant future. He continually says too that for “the foreseeable future” he need only lay down certain main principles, but from us he does not only ask for promises relating to the “foreseeable future he continually insists on details regarding the entire future.

What is the position in this respect in all countries and states as far as practical politics is concerned? They state what they are going to do now and within the following short-term period. We did put forward such practical plans very clearly, but in his motion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition requires something more from us, something which is required from no party in any country and which his predecessors did certainly not furnish when they were in power. That makes the whole motion farcical.

Let us, in view of the gravity of the times in which we live, analyse the fundamental problem in respect of which we are being attacked, externally and internally. Fundamentally South Africa’s problem is not one which has to do with its economy, although South Africa, has like any other country, her problems in this field. Nor do her difficulties lie in other spheres; basically they lie in the political sphere. In the political sphere the outside world seeks to interfere in South Africa’s domestic affairs, and it is in the political sphere that agitation is taking place. In other words, this is not a mere party struggle; it is not merely a matter concerning this nation itself; it has been magnified to embrace any form of attack from within or without which can be launched against the South African state. Why is that so? I want to sketch the background as follows: A territory which generally speaking was unpopulated became the area of settlement of two population groups at a certain stage, White who came from Europe and Bantu who came from central and East Africa. These two groups established themselves in specific areas and generally speaking these specific areas did not encroach upon each other. Later on there were some clashes and there were some cases where people were driven back; additions were made to the White area and to the Black area. Basically, however, we had two communities here of totally different origin, who had actually settled more or less simultaneously in certain areas which did not overlap. That was how the two main groups of our population came into being. In addition to that, a population group came into being here which throughout our history has continued to exist as a separate community, amongst the Whites but separately, namely the Coloureds. There is a fourth group, the Indians, who were recruited to work in a certain part of the country but who remained here, who developed here and who also remained a separate community although living among the other sections of the population. Historically that is how the four groups originated here and that is the basis of our problem.

In addition to that there is a second point, and that is that until the Second World War it was considered right and proper and fair and advantageous in our country and in many other countries that the government should be in the hands of the White man, by virtue of his greater culture and knowledge, his power and his money. It was considered a good thing that Britain and France, for example, had brought civilization to large undeveloped territories. They were not cursed and condemned for it and they themselves were proud of it, proud of their Empires and proud of the way in which they had educated and guided people towards a higher civilization. It was something which added to the prestige of those countries. It was something meritorious on their part. In the same way, in our country the British Government first of all and later South African Governments ruled all the elements of the population with honour and as a service and it was regarded as something good and fine and as the right thing. We come now to a third factor which helped to create our problem and that is that especially after the Second World War a new development took place. It had already started after the First World War but after the Second World War particularly the feeling grew that national groups or entities ruled as subject territories should be liberated and converted to states. That was all very well in the case of guardian states such as Britain and France. They liberated territories situated far from them and which, particularly in the case of Britain, they had never really regarded as part of their own territory and therefore entitled to representation in their Parliaments; they had always regarded them as separate territories which had to be governed separately and which would not even become united among themselves but would remain separated from each other. It may have been anticipated that they would one day become states. As far as they were concerned it was quite in order but we here, faced with a similar situation, namely with White rule over the destinies of the four groups which I have mentioned, had those communities with us, that is to say, either on our own borders or within our borders.

We come now to the fourth aspect of the situation that we are trying to outline with reference to the problem I have mentioned, a situation which in one respect is unique and different from that in respect of other states. The Afro-Asiatic nations and the communist nations, for their own reasons, began to exert pressure to compel us not to give separate political rights to the different groups, but political rights in a form which would suit and please them, that is, as one community in a multi-racial country. They knew—and that is what they desired—that pressure would be exerted to bring about a system of “one man, one vote” and consequently the domination of the Republic by the Bantu. The African nations believed that in that way they would be able to spill all the wealth of South Africa into the hands of a Bantu-controlled state so that they too would all benefit by it. Apart from this there were other, more sentimental reasons. In any event the communist bloc had a completely different motive and that was to be able to apply the pincers to the Western democracies and to Western civilization as practised by them. This pressure affected not only the way of thinking and the actions not only of international organizations but also of people in our country and of parties in our country.

The fifth point I wish to make in connection with the background is that either it is not realized that there are two ways, not one, of applying the principles on the basis of which one can satisfy moral arguments, or that fact is deliberately shut out of their thoughts. The one is by way of a multi-racial state and the other by way of separation, that is to say, where there is a separation within states or amongst communities. Let me illustrate that with an example. There is the franchise principle or even that one form of it, namely “one man, one vote”. You can have the franchise on the basis of “one man, one vote” in a multi-racial state but you can also have voting rights for each group even on the basis of “one man, one vote” where a separation is brought about in the political life of those groups. It is possible therefore to give effect in two ways to the principle on which people rely so much, namely, the principle of human dignity, of the right to vote. The difficulty is this: There are people like hon. members on the other side who advocate one method, a multi-racial state, and there are others who advocate the path of separation as the method to comply with all those lofty principles. That is the issue about which the struggle is being waged. The problem therefore is how to give political rights in South Africa on a sound basis and in a way which is fair and suited to each group. Above all, then, I must emphasize that in that process the White man must not be done an injustice, because he is the victim of the other system. The same also applies to the Coloured and to the Indian.

Let us consider a little more closely the solution which a multi-racial state represents. For the purposes of my argument it does not really matter whether it is constituted on a federal basis or according to another system. If the one multi-racial state were to become a federally constituted state (in accordance with the United Party’s policy) or a unitary state (in accordance with the Progressive Party’s policy, with a civilization test) or a unitary state (on the basis of the Liberal Party’s proposition of “one man, one vote”) and at the same time be truly democratic and in harmony with the spirit of the times, it would inexorably lead to Bantu domination. Because in the long run numbers must tell. That is what this age wants. That is what is said to be true democracy. That is not what he communists practise. It is not even what the African states practise. That is what pressure is being exerted for when demands are made upon our country. In other words, the process towards integration may be delayed by some and accelerated by others if they were given the chance, but inexorably it would lead to Bantu domination, a situation from which there would be no escape. The result would inevitably be an injustice to all minority groups. My hon. friend referred to Tanganyika. But the proper reference to Tanganyika would be in this connection, that in Tanganyika Britain and others relied upon the fact that Nyerere was a moderate and that he would remain in power and that he would give the Whites (20,000) and the Indians (100,000) an equal say. It is true that, as minorities, they would be swamped if the entire population formed a unitary electorate. It is also true, however, that at first they did not expect this; they expected that each group would have a more or less equal say on a communal basis. To-day, however, even in that state—whatever may have been the expectations and irrespective of what happened—one finds that what is happening is no different from what is happening in other states and that is that the Bantu are saying: “This is my country and I want complete rule because I am in the majority.” The Whites and the Indians there are equally affected therefore. That is something which will have to be borne in mind by our Coloureds and our Indians. They must not think that the colour of their skins will protect them. The minority groups will all have to contend with an unrestricted domination by the Bantu if a multiracial state comes into being. I say this explicitly because it is self-evident that if one could follow the course of retaining one state in which the White man continued to exercise his historic rule (even if its limits had to be restricted to some extent) that course would be preferred. As far as we are concerned that is the easiest road; it is the most convenient, regard being had to the past. But when that cannot be done and continued, ever-increasing integration is insisted upon, then it must be put forward as the one alternative and the other alternative must also be put forward and weighed, with all its difficulties, of which there are many, and with all its dangers, of which there are many, as against the first method with all its dangers and difficulties. That is a fact that I never hide. You must, when faced with a choice between the alternatives, test both, whether you wish to retain the present state of affairs or not. And I say it unequivocally that the people of South Africa cannot accept the consequence of having a multi-racial state unless the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians are prepared to commit race suicide.

There remains only the second course and that is that separate states must be developed. Ultimately separate states must be created for the groups which originally settled here and the greatest possible degree of governmental separation must be given to the groups which have grown up in our midst. Separate states must be created for the original groups, such as those which I mentioned at the beginning, and the maximum degree of governmental separation for those groups which have developed in your midst. That is going to create problems. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not try to frighten me with a summary of the problems. He does not have to frighten the people with it; we are aware of those problems; the people are aware of them. Nobody is under the delusion that course will bring with it only comfort and that there will be no obstacles to be overcome.

But there would also be certain advantages, which I now propose to enumerate. The first is that each group would then at least be able to exercise control over its own people and that would give them real satisfaction; it would satisfy their ambitions and it could prevent them from being too envious of their fellowmen and from trying to take away from them what belongs to them. Secondly, it could offer an opportunity of developing equalities amongst the groups. It could satisfy the desire for the recognition of human dignity. Because just as it is possible for us to live with the Black states on a basis of equality as separate states, to negotiate with each other and to help each other when necessary, so it would also be possible here if separation could be put into effect. It would then be possible to recognize human dignity and to introduce equalities here, or to do so to an infinitely greater extent, because one does not concede those things at the additional risk of continually losing more than one gives. But, thirdly, we have the example of how, throughout history, the creation of states has brought with it contentment, not only in the present age but right throughout history. In what way has satisfaction been given in Africa, notably in our time? Africa has been given satisfaction through the creation of states, and where there is conflict that is as a result of the fact that these new states are not states which embrace national entities but which have state boundaries cutting right across national entities. There they have trouble. Difficulties arise where the founders try to throw together in one state more than one national community. Whenever account has been taken of national entities when creating new states, contentment has been the result. Is this not the lesson taught by the history of Southern and Eastern Europe? Was the Roman Empire, as well as other empires that came into being, not continually involved in internal strife and conflict and disorder until there was a separation and states were created? It is true that neighbouring states also fought one another, but there was never such a great degree of unrest and internal struggle, strife and hatred between states. After a conflict of interests, they often settled the matter between them and became allies. When, however, people of different nationalities were forced together into one state, the result was an everpresent canker until the whole body disintegrated. We must realize that here we are in a similar position. In those instances national entities with the same degree of civilization and the same colour would not be held together—entities of the same Germanic origin, or of Slavonic origin. They could not be held together and yet the most diverse national entities as far as colour and degree of civilization are concerned now have to be thrown together, according to the policy of the Opposition, into one multi-racial state. Even the different colour groups here are so diverse that one cannot bring about unity in their case. Let me say this to hon. members: It is as unlikely that it will be possible to hold together the Whites and the Bantu in peace and free of strife in one multi-racial unit as it is to do so in the case of Black nations in other parts of Africa or as it is to throw together Xhosa, Basuto and Zulu without conflict into one communal entity. They too are just as proud of their own national identity as we as Whites are of our national identity.

Then I want to mention a fourth advantage or fact that we have to consider as to why separation is better than integration, and that is that we must take into account the possibility that relationships can then be reorganized for the sake of mutual interests between two or more groups each in the knowledge that it has a hold over the members of its own group. Alliances can easily be brought about which can be retained even for centuries, whereas a throwing together of different communities into one common society cannot ensure the maintenance of goodwill. Here too, once we have implemented separation, we shall create beneficial relations and alliances by mutual arrangement, as I have stated before. Any attempt to force different communities into one national entity will never succeed. Suppression will be possible but never co-operation between separate groups who desire to remain separate. The White man, the Coloured and the Indian can only be pushed out or absorbed. Just as little as it is possible in Tanganyika, from which more was expected, just as little as it is possible in Kenya, from which less is expected, and just as little as it is possible in the Federation where fear and anxiety are gripping the hearts of the people because they realize which way things are heading, so little will it be possible in South Africa to get the groups to live separately and to co-operate on a basis which will be fair in a multi-racial state. In other words, it is only the policy of nation building, the policy of good neighbourliness which can hold out any hope that one will be able to eliminate racial hatred which cannot be eliminated in an enforced multi-racial state.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in order to build on these principles, we have already taken a number of steps. The process for implementing our policy, in spite of the accusation by the Leader of the Opposition, has been going on for a considerable time. It is not true that this Government has not accomplished anything during its term of office. On the contrary, its machinery of government is continually directed towards implementing that policy. It is not my intention to outline in detail at this stage the economic, social and educational progress that has taken place both in the country as a whole and in the different Bantu areas. I would, however, refer in passing to the political foundation which has already been laid for the process which has started. I refer to the establishment, as far as the Bantu are concerned, of Bantu Authorities. The Bantu Authorities system, which hon. members have attacked so often as a retrogressive step, has in fact been a great boon and blessing to everyone of the Bantu nations in our midst. It has proved an important step in binding together hereditary national units and it has also created an authority with which we can negotiate so that we can take into account their views in connection with any future step. It is unfortunate that the impression was created that what was meant to be a first step was in fact our final idea and that it was our aim to return to primitive conditions, because that is not true, of course. The fact of the matter is simply that if one wants to lead a community to adulthood, one has to begin by using the talents and the skills available in that community. One has to build on its traditions and institutions. That is what has been done in this case. I am not going to enlarge on that, but I want to add that while prior to the establishment of the Bantu Authorities there was an instrument of government only in the Transkei and the Ciskei, and at that only an advisory body, each Bantu community to-day has a central authority. The smaller units are all consolidating into the national units of which they naturally form part. In other words, tremendous progress has been made in the sense that the Government now has to deal with actual entities which have an authoritative body with which it can negotiate in connection with this further constructive process.

I must also add that formerly there were no true leaders; there were no leaders with whom the Government could consult. There was certainly never a leader of all the Bantu nations combined. [Interjections.] That is not a strange phenomenon. The same situation obtained everywhere else in Africa. In West Africa there was not one leader who could speak on behalf of all those nations. Nkrumah could only speak for Ghana. There was one or there were a few leaders in Nigeria, one in Togoland and one in Guinea, etc. It is true that these territories had some leader or other but he could only speak for a particular territory. We have never had one or two or three leaders or a group of leaders for all the Bantu, Zulus, Xhosas, Shangans, etc., who could in actual fact speak on behalf of all these nations. The fact that there were a few persons who pushed themselves into prominent positions or who became chairmen or secretaries of small organizations did not change them into leaders of those large communities. They were elevated by the Press and sometimes by the Opposition to so-called leaders in order to embarrass us. Such an exhibition does not, however, make them true leaders. This new machinery has been instrumental in producing true leader-groups. The natural representatives of a whole community, aided by councillors in accordance with the democratic character of the typical Bantu political structure, have been given a say in their affairs. I do not say that it must end there, nor have I ever believed that it must end there. We are living in a modern world and development is inevitable. Now, however, the nation concerned will be able to participate in the process of development; now we shall be able to ascertain what the Bantu himself desires as the next step.

In the case of the Transkeian Authority the stage was reached where the body which speaks on behalf of their national group specifically asked to be given a form of self-government. The Government then declared its willingness to grant self-government to the Transkei. Approximately five months after the resolution passed by the Transkeian Authority in May of last year, that is to say, towards the end of last year, I personally met the Executive Council of the Transkei, who were supported by their Councillors, in Pretoria. They were there in connection with other administrative matters and I took advantage of the opportunity to have a brief discussion with them, in the course of which I conveyed to them the Government’s willingness to help them in connection with this step, since their own organization apparently considered itself capable of undertaking this task. Obviously the Government does not wish to force upon them a new constitution now that there is an authoritative body with whom one can consult and negotiate. I put it to them, therefore, that I would like to hear from them precisely what type of constitution they had in mind. They then asked that further consultation should take place after the recess-committee appointed by them had an opportunity of putting its ideas into writing. They also asked to see me personally again as soon as they had reached that stage. I told them, of course, that they could come to see me, together with the Minister of Bantu Administration as soon as they reached that stage. As soon as they are ready with their proposals therefore the matter will be dealt with at some future meeting. I do not know exactly what they are going to ask but I want to state specifically here to-day what the Government is prepared to do so that there can be no doubt—not even in the mind of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Let me say at once that there has been considerable speculation in connection with this matter recently. I do not claim therefore that in that sense we are prepared to permit a dramatic development. I do claim, however, that it is an important development of which everybody in this country and the outside world should take due note. Inasmuch as people did not believe that we were honest with our policy, that we were in earnest and that we were prepared to implement it, the development which I am announcing here is in fact a dramatic one. The hon. Leader of the Opposition need not think, however, that he has forced me or the Government to take this step. I want to inform him that the decision to state this attitude during the present Session and to do so at the very first opportunity, was taken before we had any idea as to the nature of his motion. The hon. member must not say either that the Government has been forced to act hastily in spite of the fact that I stated, when we were returned to power, that we refused to allow ourselves to be rushed. Because we are not going to permit ourselves to be rushed. The Government will act when we consider the time opportune, whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considers it too early or whether he considers it too late.

I want to add that this announcement will prove that the policy of separate development is not just theory but practical politics. In fact its character is that of day-to-day practical politics. That is to say, the Government implements its plans from stage to stage as progress as the Bantu progress. The granting of responsibilities will not be separate, unrelated steps but will form part of a progressive development—not progressive in the Houghton sense of the word!

The Government will therefore grant the Transkei self-government. The Transkeian Authority will have to obtain clarity as to its ideas concerning the form and content of the constitution and will then have to come and discuss it with us. As far as the Government is concerned, the element of representation will have to be introduced, together with a vote for potential Bantu voters living in the Transkei and outside it. Who in fact is to receive the vote—that is to say, the question of age and sex—is the sort of information that will have to come from those with whom we have to consult, otherwise consultation is meaningless. If, as indicated by the Basuto and Swazi nations, it is desired that there should be a suitable form of representation through the Chiefs, directly or indirectly, in the Transkei Parliament, then they will have to say so. As far as the Government is concerned, it wants the element of representation to be introduced in one form or another, but as to the details and as to how it is to go hand in hand with the idea of Chieftainship, that is a matter on which the Bantu themselves will have to inform us in the course of consultations. I need not emphasize the fact that the Transkei Parliament will consist of Bantu members only, elected by Bantu voters only.

Hear, hear!

It will not be a multi-racial Transkei as far as its administration is concerned. The Whites living there will be represented in the Parliament of the Republic, just as the Bantu electors in the White areas will be represented in the Transkeian Parliament. This is precisely how the Basutos working and living in the Republic are represented in the Basutoland Parliament. Hon. members need not laugh at this, therefore, because they never laugh at anything that Britain does!

Secondly, this Parliament will have to have an executive body. I do not know whether at this stage the Bantu in that area will be prepared to accept the Cabinet system—that a Prime Minister be appointed who will then himself appoint his other Ministers. As far as the Government is concerned, it is prepared to introduce the Cabinet system in the Transkeian Parliament.

As far as further guidance is concerned … [Interjections.] I shall have something to say presently about the misuse which I expect hon. members like the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) will make of this, and therefore about the hon. member’s attempt to sneer.

Then I come to the third point. It stands to reason that this body will require guidance and help for proper democratic development and its present leaders have already asked for this. It goes without saying that the assumption of full responsibility will accordingly have to take place gradually. In other words, there are certain powers which the Transkeian Government will have to take over immediately and some powers which will be added gradually as and when others are mastered. Amongst the powers and duties which I assume it will be possible to transfer to their control immediately, are such matters—I mention them because I do not know what they will ask for—as agriculture, education, health and welfare, lands, roads, local Bantu Authorities and things of that kind. The Republic will continue to act as ward and will undertake the remaining functions which will include, amongst others, defence, external affairs, certain functions of the judiciary and so forth. In other words, the fear which the hon. Leader of the Opposition expressed, namely, that the Bantu Government would not be able to administer its affairs or do so efficiently, and his question as to whether we intend taking measures to ensure that the Bantu will learn to administer his affairs efficiently, relate to matters which have all been considered already. The Bantu Administration will be trained in the process of democratic government and duties will be handed over to it in such a way that it will be able to cope with them, in spite of the distrust now expressed in the Bantu leaders by the Leader of the Opposition, when it suits him to do so.

I would add that as far as the time factor is concerned, it will be possible, I hope, to make a start with this institution this year, but I do not know how soon the recess committee of the Transkeian Authority will be in a position, through its other committees and through its territorial authority which has to meet, to finalize the matters which will come up for its consideration. Thereafter legislation in this regard will of course still have to be piloted through this Parliament. Therefore, although the Government would be prepared to start this year, it is possible that the proposal will only be capable of implementation during the first half of 1963. I have also explained that the progressive assumption of functions will take longer—how long I am not in a position to prophesy—because more and more functions will be transferred as it becomes possible for the Bantu rulers with their public service to cope with those functions.

Here I want to add that this development will result in Transkeian citizenship for the Transkei Bantu. In the transition period this Transkeian citizenship will probably suffer from certain disabilities and the protection and aid to be provided by South African citizenship in this connection will have to be properly worked out by constitutional lawyers. It is a matter which obviously requires careful study, but here I want to state clearly that the principle of a distinctive national identity must be coupled to the principle of a distinctive citizenship.

Hear, hear!

The sixth point that I wish to put very clearly is that such an administration will obviously have to have its own public service at its disposal. It is equally self-evident, as in the case of other recently constituted African states which came into being under British control, that the Bantu will not simply be able to staff a Bantu Public Service. Consequently White public servants will have to be made available in order to train Bantu officials. The posts of the White officials and their promotion within the White Public Service of the Republic will continue to be guaranteed. Their return and promotion in the meantime will remain guaranteed, and it is the intention to help the Transkei Government to replace the White officials, from the lowest grades upward, as soon as possible, with Bantu officials who have been properly trained.

In conjunction with the Bantu Government, the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Bantu Education will try to draw up a programme of replacement as the target to be aimed at over the next five years. In this way increased opportunities will be given to the Bantu in their own territory.

The question will now be asked: How can the costs involved in this connection be covered by the Bantu Government? In the first place, the direct taxes of the Transkeian Authority, collected both within and outside the territory, will be placed at the disposal of this Authority. The direct tax consists of the poll tax and direct income tax payable by the higher income groups.

Will they be able to amend it?

The taxes will be collected through the existing machinery and since we still have to assume the responsibility for the finances, only we ourselves will be able to amend the taxes. We can, however, obtain advice from them.

Secondly, a sum will be granted by the Department of Bantu Administration and the Native Trust equal to the expenditure now incurred in respect of those functions for which that body will assume the responsibility. To begin with an amount equal to this will be handed over annually to the Transkeian Government. I trust that this point has been clearly stated. An amount equal to the expenditure now incurred by the Department of Bantu Administration and by the Native Trust in respect of those functions to be taken over by the Transkeian Authority will be transferred to them.

Thirdly, it is assumed that this development will entail additional expenditure in connection with the functioning of this body as well as certain additional duties to be assumed by it. Precautions will naturally have to be taken against unlimited expenditure and waste; but one realizes that at this stage the Transkeian Government will not be in a position to obtain from its own people sufficient money to meet all requirements. The Republic will therefore be prepared, just as other states do so for underdeveloped territories, to grant an additional sum to this territory under its care. It is difficult to say now what this amount should be, but if it is an amount like R2,000,000 over and above the other funds which I have already mentioned, it will not deter the Government.

Will there be loans also?

If loans are required, the Republic will serve as the channel through which such loans will be sought whether internally or abroad; but it will have to be for works for which loans can be considered and not for any wasteful or transitory administrative purpose.

The Government regards this expenditure as appropriate and justified on two grounds. One of them is that of common justice. It is always necessary, for the solution of the problems facing us in this country, to bring about good relations and friendship and co-operation between Black and White. Secondly, in doing this, the international struggle against South Africa will be deprived of whatever background there is to it. I shall have more to say at a later stage as to the effect that this may possibly have and about which the Leader of the Opposition put a question to me. At this stage I just want to say that if there is still justice in the world, this should strongly counteract the international animosity and suspicion which have such a detrimental effect on our economy. For this reason it will pay us to incur such expenditure. It is also worth a great deal to us if we can create for ourselves peaceful neighbours who are also granted an opportunity to become prosperous. They should not look to others for assistance, as the Leader of the Opposition fears.

Another point in this connection (an eighth point in connection with this programme which I am announcing) is the following: It will be necessary, in the interests of peaceful co-existence, to start making arrangements immediately for regular mutual discussions on matters of common interest. This should also serve as a step towards some form of consultative relationship in future, perhaps through more representative gatherings which might be compared with what Britain endeavours to attain in the Commonwealth through Prime Ministers’ Conferences. We are, in other words, prepared to create machinery for consultation and co-operation with Bantu neighbours. [Laughter.] I consider it extremely silly on the part of hon. members of the Opposition to laugh about it. They want to co-operate with them as junior partners who may eventually become their rulers. Why therefore do they ridicule our effort to co-operate with Bantu States as neighbours, thereby obviating Bantu domination in one state?

Then there is a last point in this connection. As I explained previously in connection with the Coloured community, the relationship between the Minister concerned, the Minister of Bantu Administration, and the government in such a territory will be gradually modified. His functions as administrative controller will gradually decrease and more and more his task will be to obtain good territorial relations. In other words, in respect of these territories he will exercise a function similar to that of the Minister of External Affairs, and that is to bring about good relations between the states and to undertake negotiations on matters of common interest.

This political development will, of course, have to be coupled with economic development. In the first place I want to indicate that the Department of Bantu Administration, in conjunction with the Native Trust, has already drawn up a five-year plan, for the general development of the infra-structure which is essential for industrial development. This programme will then have to be implemented in co-operation with the Transkeian Government. I shall not be able to deal with this five-year plan in detail; but the Minister concerned will make it known to the House in due course. That programme will, as I have mentioned, deal with two kinds of undertakings. One is the creation of the infra-structure for industrial growth, that is to say, roads, water and electricity supply. The second part of the programme will deal with general development—amongst others, the development of agriculture—but that also includes the supply of certain raw materials, for example by the cultivation of fibres and, in some of the Bantu areas, by producing sugar and timber and perhaps other products of that nature. I mention these merely as examples.

Secondly, in connection with the economic development, the Bantu Investment Corporation, which is already functioning in respect of the Bantu territories in different parts of the country, will also continue in the Transkei. It will have to draw up a one-year investment programme and a five-year investment programme for both the Transkei and the other territories. The Corporation is being requested to do so. That means that White money and White initiative can be canalized through this investment corporation towards such services. This investment corporation has not only financed development in various places already but has guided development by means of advice and made it more fruitful by means of administrative assistance. A moment ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition scoffed at the fact that so little had been accomplished with this; but naturally one starts in a small way. The industrial development of our country also commenced slowly in spite of the opposition of his political predecessors, but it has grown tremendously. I do not therefore apologize for its small beginning; I am proud of the fact that a start is being made. Here I want to add that the Bantu have themselves shown so much interest in this Corporation that they have already invested R200,000 of their savings in it. At this stage of development I regard that as a great demonstration of confidence. An investment of R200,000 by the Bantu so soon after the establishment of such a Corporation, about which they really knew nothing, is no small matter to them.

Parallel to this, a special Development Corporation will be established for the Transkei, with a Board of Directors not necessarily consisting of persons taking part in politics. We would like to use the services of business men particularly in this corporation. This development corporation for Bantu development within this area will concentrate on the more direct services to Bantu industrial undertakings and more especially on the establishment of new Bantu undertakings within this area. It will train Bantu workers from the bottom up, as also Bantu managers and Bantu directorates. In other words, this development corporation, the special Transkeian Development Corporation, must be looked upon as a ward-entrepreneur, as a body which will not itself acquire vested interests, as in the case of a private owner, and which will have no desire in that direction, but which is established in order to utilize White initiative, White managerial ability, White skill, White training ability and White money without the profit motive or any inclination towards exploitation as far as the undertaking itself is concerned. It will be a development corporation for the benefit of the Bantu and as the latter learns to play his full role at the various levels of development, he will be given the opportunity to take over those undertakings. The economic potential within his own area rightfully belongs to him and to nobody else.

The Bantu Development Corporation will be able to make use of private firms who wish to place their skill and administrative abilities at its disposal and even to make use of those who wish to make their money available through the medium of the Corporation, but who do not desire to work or to co-operate there simply in order to acquire ownership or to obtain profit for themselves. In other words, it will be possible to make use of the services of those firms who are helpful and obliging but do not expect to acquire private ownership or a business or branch of their own within the Bantu area. This will serve as a test of the bona fides of many of those people who have intimated that they wish to help to utilize White initiative and skill simply for the sake of the Bantu and not in their own interests. This opportunity will now be given to everybody who is sincere, but not to those who simply want to establish branches for self-gain without the service motive. I shall return to this matter of private firms within the Bantu territories.

I also wish to refer specially to a particular form of industrial development in which White initiative is most certainly necessary, and that is where large locality bound industries such as mining must come into being. There it will be possible to come to an arrangement with experienced industrialists to guide and to undertake that development either on an agency basis or as employers of either the Development Corporation or the Bantu Government. In other words, there are certainly ways and means by which White initiative, money and skill can be harnessed in the transition periods without the dangers with which I still intend to deal and which are created by the demand made by White firms for the ownership of either Bantu land or an undertaking of his own at the expense of the Bantu.

My next point is that this development corporation or a broader consultative body, whichever is found most suitable in the light of experience, will be given the responsibility of exercising supervision over the ordination and the promotion and the acceleration of all economic activities in this area, whether undertaken by the State, the Government of the Republic, by the Bantu Government, or by the Investment Corporation. In other words, it will be necessary to bring about co-ordinated planning on an objective basis.

Then I wish to announce that the industrial development of the border areas will now also have to be promoted energetically and to that end a five-year target programme will be drawn up. In spite of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has sought to ridicule the progress made up to now in the industrial development of the border areas, I wish to say that this is the policy which is the most important and which provides the most promising solution to the problem as to how to bring about development in the backward Bantu areas. After all, in these border areas White private firms are able to establish their industries freely and with a view to making profits. It is not true that this will be accompanied by a form of political integration. On the contrary the fact of the matter is that the industries on the borders make use of workers who are also able to lead full political lives because they reside in the neighbouring Bantu area. The industrialist can, therefore, count on labour living with their own families, labour which can be content in as much as it looks after its own general interests. The industrialist can rest assured in the knowledge that here he will be able to continue to own his undertaking. Under these circumstances it presents a more attractive opportunity for development for those industries which would have been prepared to go to the Bantu areas. The proposition is also made attractive through various auxiliary measures undertaken by the Government. There is really little reason why a private firm should want to establish its industry in a Bantu area and not in a border area. What reason could there be? For the greater part the Bantu areas are not 50 miles from the border, but a much shorter distance. As far as locality is concerned, therefore, it does not make any difference to an industry whether it is just inside or just outside. The industrialist need not go into the areas in order to obtain raw materials because one of the problems of the Bantu areas is the general lack of raw materials of their own. He has no particular reason therefore to wish to establish his industry in the Bantu areas, except perhaps two, and in respect of these two reasons he will be thwarted. The one is that he may wish to enter in order to exploit labour by means of low wages. A low wage structure cannot be allowed in the Bantu areas and a Bantu Government would have to oppose it, because it would be destructive of the whole development of such Bantu areas if they were to become second Hong Kongs. It would also destroy the chances of obtaining outside markets for their products. A low wage policy in the Bantu areas would, therefore, be opposed and it would not necessarily attract a White firm. The second reason is that no opportunity will arise for a firm just to establish itself and then by means of sales to the Bantu to obtain an exhorbitant price for the products of its industry. These two undesirable practices will be controlled by the Republican Government as long as it is responsible for the economic development of those areas in the interests of the Bantu. I shall deal in a moment with what the position will be in this respect when a Bantu area has reached full independence.

In other words, as soon as the border areas show good development, the Bantu area too will develop just as much as it would because of an industry within the Bantu area. It will have this advantage that the worker’s wages will be spent in the town in which he lives and accordingly it will promote the building up of such towns, as well as all the service industries and the services which come into being in those towns. It will be possible for all such undertakings to be controlled and owned by the Bantu. He will be able to make bricks and build houses and run laundries. He will be able to run motor-car workshops. He is already doing so. The wages from the nearby border industries will form the basis of the development of a growing community with the whole background of precisely those service industries which constituted the beginning of the industrial development of most nations on a much larger scale. It is for this reason that I say that this form of development will be of great importance to the Bantu.

In this way the development of the Bantu homelands will take place in a way which will not be dangerous or contentious or give offence to the Bantu. One knows that the growth of private Bantu firms into great undertakings owned and managed by themselves will not take place easily and in a short time. As a matter of fact, in the same way the Bantu will not be able to farm as productively and economically within the same space of time as the White man. But just as we cannot on this ground allow the White farmer to go into the Bantu area to acquire or to lease the Bantu’s land and to have the Bantu there as his labourer because he would then be taking away the potentialities from before his very nose and in all probability would not easily give it up later, so we cannot allow the same sort of thing to happen in the case of industrial development, whereby these potentialities are taken away from them and not preserved for them until they can exploit them themselves. The principle, therefore, remains that there cannot be White private ownership or even co-ownership of industries. White initiative, as I have just said, must be used in other ways in the Bantu area. As long as the White guardian, the Republican Government, must control the economic development of the Bantu homelands in the interests of the Bantu, this will have to remain the policy. What is the reason for this?

There is one important decisive reason, and that is that if the White guardian foists a private undertaking on it or allows it into those areas, it will be viewed as economic colonialism. It will be regarded as an attempt by the Whites to rid themselves of the responsibilities of government in the political sphere, but to carry on with economic exploitation. This would destroy all our efforts to develop friendship. We cannot allow it. If the Bantu when they are in full control, wish to invite White firms, that is their affair. Then the White government cannot be accused of seeking to apply White colonialism. I am convinced, however, that the Bantu will not allow White firms to lessen their chances if the process of gradual development takes place in this sphere in accordance with the methods we envisage and for which they need and require our help. Hon. members must look at what is happening in other parts of Africa. Surely they need not be reminded of how one Black state after another has started to talk of the nationalization of White industries and about methods of removing White entrepreneurs and replacing them with Blacks? In those cases the Black states actually invited many of those White firms to enter or found them there as the providers of employment or even as sources of the prosperity of the country, but later on became jealous of them or sought to push them out for other reasons. Already, even at this early stage, their reaction is one of expulsion. I am not talking about Egypt; I am talking about what is even being said in a country like Nigeria which is supposed to be well disposed to the Whites, that the Whites should get out, and the same thing has even been mentioned in Tanganyika, as well as in Kenya even before it has received its independence. We cannot get away from the fact that quite naturally the Black man would like to control his own industrial development. The Black state will perhaps temporarily accept White firms, but will possibly later expel them. That does not make much difference to Britain and the United States, where perhaps some of their undertakings are far distant from them in the other territories and if perhaps as the result of the process of expulsion enmity ensues. But to us it makes a big difference. To us it is of vital interest that good neighbourliness and friendship should be maintained. Therefore we dare not introduce White initiative and capital and “know-how” into our Bantu areas in a form which will become permanent and possessive. We must introduce it, but in the form of a guardian who assists with the object of giving away these undertakings as and when those people become capable of taking them over. To that I want to add that a partnership is no solution at this stage. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to what Mr. Rupert said in this regard, but what has been left out of account is that when a partnership is formed with the Malays in Malaya it is simply a company formed in partnership with rich Asiatic investors in another independent country, with the agreement of that country’s Government. In our case the position will be different, viz. that the White guardian allows a partnership to be formed and should no more have to bear the responsibility than it dare allow a White business in a country where the Black Government perhaps does not at the outset want anything like that, or even later. When those territories are completely free and independent and then themselves want to allow partnership or private undertakings, I have no objection to it. Then it will not be the responsibility or the fault of the White Government. However, we should be careful not to earn the stigma of seeking to introduce any form of economic imperialism. Nor should there be an element of bluff, as is inherent in that proposal. That will be the case if some or other financial organization controlled by Whites, with the object of rendering services to the Bantu, and which in that sense may be called “Bantu”, like the Bantu Trust or the Bantu Investment Corporation, is proposed. or if use is simply made of the Bantu, ignorant and poor as they may be, as a socalled Black partner. These two forms of bluff will not disguise the fact, viz. that these partnerships are in fact White undertakings. That is why we say that at this stage we must concentrate on the development of those areas in the economic sphere, firstly, by means of opening up the border areas for permanent occupation by private White undertakings, and, secondly, by promoting industrial development in the Bantu area for the Bantu himself wherever possible, or otherwise during a transition period by means of machinery such as I have just described, in terms of the principle of guardianship.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to intimate that everything will go very smoothly and easily and that there are no great problems. On the contrary, there will be. The psychological problems referred to by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are of the greatest importance. We know that the Native’s idea of “freedom”, also in Central Africa, is not to work hard for one’s independent existence, but that thereafter you need not work any more, because you will inherit that which the White man built up there! That is often the idea of freedom or “Uhuru”. I also accept what the Leader of the Opposition said regarding the initiative of the Bantu, particularly in the economic sphere, that it is by far not developed yet, but it is particularly with due regard to that fact and those problems that we make our proposals. We also know of the shortage of raw materials in those areas, as well as the shortage of skill and capital. It is also for that reason that we are making this type of guardianship proposal which I have just mentioned. However, we must ensure in all our planning that we do not create the impression that with the one hand we give (in the political sphere) whilst taking with the other (in the economic sphere).

Whilst I am on this subject, I just want to give a hint to the South African firms who intend establishing their private undertakings in the High Commissioned Territories. It is their own business if they want to do so there in conflict with our policy as I have expounded it; it is Britain’s concern whether they want to allow it. That does not concern us and I am not going to say anything about the establishment of such businesses. If the Basutos or whoever it might be later become dissatisfied with it, they must settle accounts with England. We have already had the experience, where South African undertakings have gone to other territories in Africa, that when the Government concerned wants to take it over or wants to destroy it in some other way, they then ask the South African Government to protect them. Therefore we are in fact concerned about it. All I want to say here is this. They should not then come and ask us for assistance. What they are doing is, in my opinion, looking for trouble and it is against the policy of this Government. If later they are faced with such problems as nationalization, they must not seek our protection under those circumstances. In addition, it must be understood that South Africa will continue to protect its own industries against competition from any country with a low wage level. It may be possible, although I hope that it will not be the case, that lower wage levels will be established in the High Commission Territories. Then such firms should not, because they are of South African origin and are established in well-disposed neighbouring territories, think that we will give them the right to compete with people in the Republic who are trying to build up a higher wage structure for our Bantu. I realize that the reason why some firms want to establish undertakings in those territories (and that is also the reason why some private firms would like to establish themselves in our Bantu territories) is because they think that this will make it easier for them to capture markets in the rest of Africa than if they do so from our White areas or our border areas. That may be so, although there is some reason for doubt, but as against that they must offset the other problems and difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, the question has been put to me: What about the expansion of the Bantu Territories and what about their borders? I am aware that it is often alleged that the Bantu have too little land; it is said that they have only 13 per cent of the land as against the 87 per cent owned by the Whites. Of course this comparison, as I have often said, is not accurate in principle. The Bantu are still in those parts of Southern Africa where they themselves settled. Not only did they settle themselves in their present areas in the Republic, but also in the High Commissioned Territories which are under British rule. If one considers those areas in which the Bantu settled themselves, including of course what South Africa has already added to those areas since 1913, then all the Bantu territories together constitute 50 per cent of that portion of Southern Africa, let us say, south of the line formed by the northern border of Bechuanaland and the Republic, just as the Whites have 50 per cent of that part of Southern Africa. Of course it is a further fact that one cannot compare territories just in terms of percentages, and this comparison made by the critics is meaningless. In Europe and other parts of the world there are also certain areas which constitute densely populated small states. Sometimes one finds adjoining them larger states with more territory, but which percentagewise are not so densely populated. Surely that does not give the nation which settled itself in that smaller area the right, as its population increases, to make demands on its neighbour in respect of its larger territory! The same principle applies here. Besides, it should be remembered that even though one were to give unlimited land to the Bantu, that will not afford a solution. The solution lies in the sphere of industrialization. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren), who is not present now, recently, together with some of his friends, objected to the purchase of additional land to be added to the Ciskei, and the argument used by them, according to the Press, was that one could settle many more Natives on the land they already have if only they would make better use of it. Because they are not good farmers, they should not be given more land. I am not using that argument because I know that in terms of the promises made in 1936 the Republic must purchase still more land. It is, however, correct that many more people should be able to make a living on that land. The comparison in regard to Pondoland to which the Leader of the Opposition referred originated with me, and not with Mr. Rupert. I said a long time ago, also in this House, that in West Pondoland the climatic conditions and the nature of the soil were such that area alone could carry 14,000,000 people if there were the necessary initiative, the skill and the capital development, and therefore the type of people existing in Holland or in Denmark or in any of the thickly populated, developed countries of Europe. But of course the Bantu there do not have these characteristics and therefore it cannot be developed to that extent. However, the potentiality of that soil is there, provided the other types of development are also there. The problem therefore cannot be solved merely by buying more land. However, what is in fact necessary in terms of providing additional land is to provide such land as will assist in consolidating these areas into economic units. But in this process of consolidation it is not necessary to buy all the land belonging to Whites which lies in between Black spots. There should also be a process of the exchange of land. Therefore the whole problem of additional land and the exchange of land must stand over until there is a separate government for such an area. Our problem, Sir, in regard to matters pertaining to land is the psychology of the Native. If a Black spot is bought out, and even if a more expensive, larger and better White area adjoining this Bantu area is given gratis to the inhabitants of this Black spot, generally there is the greatest difficulty in getting them to move. Then there is a lot of unjustifiable talk about oppression and coercion, even by hon. members opposite. Therefore it is essential that this process should rather take place through proper co-operation between the Bantu Government and the White Government. That also applies to the question of determining the borders. Of course there must be borders immediately. One cannot grant self-rule to an area without specifying what its present borders are, but those borders need not and will not be the final borders. Unless a long time can elapse during which political development cannot take place because there are quarrels in regard to the borders, for practical reasons the existing borders of what are the Black areas, even though they are spread out in spots, will have to be accepted as the present borders. On that basis there will have to be a lengthy process of consolidation. However, the Department of Bantu Administration is already instituting investigations in respect of various areas and making plans in regard to what may eventually be the consolidated borders. That requires much study. Those who were concerned with the earlier determination of what was to be the released areas will understand this. It took years. In this regard the necessary investigation has therefore been set in process, but the basic starting point is that the borders now being laid down, although not finally determined, will be what are now the borders of the areas inhabited by the Bantu who at the moment fall within the territory of such a Bantu authority.

I want to add this also. In the Transkei there is a very special problem, namely the White spot problem. In terms of what I have just said, those areas will in the meantime remain White spots, and therefore under the control of the Republic, but the process, as I have announced earlier, of the gradual and, if possible, rapid darkening particularly of the smaller White spots, will have to take place. In other words, portions of the White spots will continually pass over into the territory of the Transkeian Government. In the case of Umtata, because it is big, the problem is consequently also greater, and it will take longer to solve, but I do not think anyone can escape the fact that just as a city like Nairobi and large White areas in Kenya fall under that Government, so in the course of time also a city like Umtata will become part of the territory of the Transkeian Government. Its environments are already becoming Bantu areas. I believe that the process will be slower in the case of the city itself, but the eventual position is inevitable. The choice is that either such places become Black, or the whole of South Africa will become Black in terms of the policy of the United Party.

I should now like to deal with a few points of criticism which were again mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day. One of the points of criticism often heard is that the Government wants to dismember the South Africa we all love. But is that not really the old imperialistic argument? Is that not the argument of colonialism? Is that not the argument of people who first governed solely as Whites and seek to retain that right when the position later arises where they have to consider the aspirations of Black people and others to self-rule? Such people then say: No, we do not want to hand over those areas settled by the Bantu to be governed by them. The Opposition, however, goes further and says: We want to retain the reins of government in our hands together with them; in order to achieve that, i.e. in order to be able to retain White domination and the country as a whole, we will however give them the semblance of joint government. The question is not whether they will be able to manage that, but whether this is not imperialism; whether it is not the argument of the colonist? Is that not the argument of the imperialist who wants to retain control over what belongs to other people? I say that it is nothing less than that. It is again the same type of argument which existed in days gone by when White states in Europe ruled Black areas. It is the same type of argument which formerly existed in connection with the High Commission Territories, when everybody wanted them to be governed by the Whites as part of South Africa. But as it became clear that, in terms of the present world tendency, Britain was going to make those areas Black self-governing countries, surely we can no longer have the ambition to have them under our control. I am not referring to the mistake in British policy of appearing to make them multi-racial. Some people may have the ambition—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has—of bringing them into a multi-racial South African partnership Government, but of course that also means that he will thereby be increasing the Black powers which will then govern and triumph over him. In other words, if heed has to be paid to present-day demands, the fact should be faced that in these Black areas the Whites would have obtained control, but not in areas settled by them. These areas were in fact conquered and consequently came under White control, but if the Republic wants to act in terms of the tendency of the present-day world, in terms of the demands made by present-day morality, then self-rule must be given to these Bantu areas—nothing more, but also nothing less. If we cannot escape that, it means that we are not now dividing up South Africa; history divided it up long ago and we are just accepting the hard facts of life and their consequences. To that I have to add this: If the Opposition is correct and we are now dividing the country, then I now have to choose between dividing it (and thereby retaining control over the area settled by our White forefathers) or regarding the country as one governmental unit (and thereby turning it into a multi-racial state which, as I said before, will be under Black domination). I choose division. If I have to choose between division with all the dangers that may be attached to it, and the so-called territorial unity with its attendant White racial suicide, then I unhesitatingly choose division.

A second point in this regard which was also made by the Leader of the Opposition is that these separate Bantu areas will be dangerous. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) also asked me a moment ago whether these separate Bantu areas would not be dangerous. Will the Russians not perhaps invest money there or offer other assistance; will the Bantu states, as is sometimes said outside this House, not perhaps have their own armies; will they not become a jumping-off ground for Communism to enter South Africa? Of course these dangers exist. They also exist in connection with the High Commission Territories to which Britain is giving self-rule, and that danger will remain, even with race federation. In fact, those dangers will then really be greater.

Why?

The reason is that because in such a race federation the Bantu will be encouraged by the Afro-Asian or communist states and others, to the same extent as is happening in Kenya or Ghana, to triumph over the White minority. Communism will seek a foothold which it cannot now obtain in South Africa or later at least in the White area, under a race federation by means of the Bantu and their leaders in the whole country, and also in this Parliament. That will be an even greater danger, because it will bring the threat to the West and to the Whites of South Africa that the whole of South Africa can be taken over by this majority partner of the Leader of the Opposition, who will in fact later become the ruler. I repeat: if we are not able, through our friendship and our assistance and through the common sense of the Bantu, to keep them opposed to Communism in their own states, we will be even less able to do so when they live in a multi-racial state in which a United Party Government tries to rule them under White domination. My own belief is therefore that in such a multi-racial state the danger will be much greater, particularly if the United Party continues telling its story that they will enforce White leadership and domination. As against that, I believe that these people should be given their own states, as they desire, and if they are assisted financially and in regard to “knowhow” and advice and by means of temporary public servants in their public service, as I have outlined it, a well-disposed neighbouring state will be able to develop. I have confidence in the mass of our Bantu, with the exception of a small group of agitators. I believe that they will see what is taking place in the rest of Africa, and that this will strengthen the bonds between us rather than lead to their joining up with foreign countries, which will result in conflict and chaos. I must also make this further point. If my confidence is misplaced and the Bantu choose Communism, and we have one multi-racial state here with the Bantu as partners in it, surely they will also be in the public service and in the army and in all of those organizations which have been mentioned, and constitute a danger! Is that not much more dangerous than if these Bantu areas were to have their own armies, even armies which want to take action against the Republic? Then at least they will have to conquer our army, which may be stronger than theirs. If they number so many millions more than the Whites in a multi-racial state, of course the army of that multi-racial state will consist of more Blacks than Whites and its public service will consist of more Blacks than Whites. What will then happen to the Whites and their ideology? Why is the electorate being frightened when we are trying to establish well-disposed little Black neighbouring states and to safeguard them from such dangers by being prepared to render all kinds of services to them? Why should the Bantu be incited by all this scare-mongering? We could also frighten the public by saying how, in the proposed system of the Opposition, the dangers are infinitely greater, as I have outlined above, but one does not want to do so, nor is it in the best interest of good relations. Still, I had to reply to these provocative statements.

A further argument advanced is that the Bantu in the White areas is being forgotten in all these plans. I have already replied to this often, to the effect that it is not true. Let me take the Transkei Bantu as an example. They form part of their community wherever they may live. Through the franchise they will now be getting, they will have a say in the Government of their community there. They will have as many opportunities, or probably as the result of their experience and skill, greater opportunities than the inhabitants of the Transkei to obtain posts in that public service and better positions than they can fill here. They will have opportunities, and probably better opportunities, to play a greater role in the development there than anything they can enjoy here under the present circumstances. In other words, for the urban Transkei Bantu a rich field of opportunity is now being opened up for their own enrichment and for the rendering of service in their own community as it develops. I foresee that the position will in time become such that particularly the Bantu who comes to work and gains experience in the White area will go back to put it to use there because of the multiplicity of other activities which will continually develop there. In other words, just as in the case of the Italians working in Switzerland and Germany and Holland and other countries of Europe, the Bantu will seek work in the Republic particularly when they are still young and while they still retain their own tribal connection or national connection. When they have gained experience and have saved money, they will use or spend it in their own territories and among their own people. Apart from these tremendous prospects and opportunities which will be given to our urban Bantu in their homelands, the Government will also continue doing what it announced here previously, and which is already in progress, namely to allow the Bantu in the Bantu urban residential areas to attain a fairly high level of self-government under the supervision of the Whites to whom those residential areas belong. There will be local self-government within certain limits, as has already been announced. For the rest, there will be all kinds of links, direct bonds, between them and their homeland, with representatives going back and forth and at the same time also an inter-change of opportunities. For example, in the educational sphere the teachers for whom we must still take responsibility amongst the Bantu in our area will be interchangeable with those for whom the Bantu Government takes responsibility in its area. In regard to the urban Bantu in the political sphere, this Government argues no differently from the way in which England does in different circumstances in regard to the urban Bantu in the Republic in respect of his rights in Basutoland, but in so far as other rights are concerned it can do more for its own Bantu here. Those urban Basuto know that Britain cannot demand different rights here. Therefore he has rights only in regard to that area. The new position is therefore both like that of the Italians who go to work temporarily in another country but who retain their vote and their citizenship in Italy, and like that of the Basuto from Basutoland who is in the Republic. That is precisely the position which will arise here, where one is dealing with another developing state. Then there is a further point of criticism …

Do you not think it possible that UN will say that you must do for South West what you are now doing for the Transkei?

I am not discussing South West Africa now. If, however, UN asks us to do the same for the various communities in South West that we are doing for the communities in the Republic, I shall be only too glad. We shall be only too glad, for example, to do for the Ovambos what we are doing for the Transkei.

A further argument is that it is the policy of the Government to suppress the human rights of the Bantu, including the franchise; that apartheid is a policy of perpetual domination; that it amounts to the denial of any form of franchise to the non-Whites. Everything I have said to-day negatives this argument. It is true that we want to grant these rights in a different way from what is asked by some people, but it is a fact that we want to grant these rights. In this regard I also want to say that it is a fundamental right also of the White man to protect his own nation from disaster. Every nation has the right to continued existence. That is the most basic human right. It is a fundamental right to preserve one’s nation and to protect one’s identity as a nation. That is the basis of our whole policy.

There are Bantu leaders with whom we have had discussions who clearly told us that they attach as much importance to the preservation of their identity as we do. They are anxious to preserve their own national ideals and their culture and their heritage and they realize that this can only be done if they obtain the franchise and other rights, apart from other groups, in this way.

Another argument used is that the White extremists in South Africa are just out to dominate the Black man in every respect and that the Government is not serious in regard to its policy of apartheid. They say it is just a bluff. Another of these arguments is that the policy of apartheid is just a cloak behind which to hide White domination. Again I say that all these accusations are given the lie to by what I have announced to-day in regard to the steps we are taking. In fact, I think that under the greatest provocation from within and without the country the Whites in South Africa, with few exceptions, have always been very tolerant. When one considers all the pressure exerted on us and all the ugly things said about us, but one also notes how our people in this election supported this policy of granting to others what they demand for themselves, viz. their own freedoms, then I say that the White man in South Africa is very tolerant indeed. Proof has been afforded of our earnestness and our faith that our policy can be implemented, and of our lack of a desire simply to dominate everybody. There is proof that the White man does not fear the development of the Bantu and is not unwilling but even anxious to live as good neighbours with the Black man. That is proved by everything I have just stated officially and by what we are doing.

Then it was alleged that this would have terrible financial repercussions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition again said so today. He stated that we would have to spend more than would otherwise have been devoted to the development of the country as a whole. It is surprising that people can argue like that, because if we consider what must be done in any case to afford livelihood to all these people, if one considers all the needs of life of all the individuals who will in any case be living somewhere, then what one has to spend on caring for them, wherever they may be, cannot make much difference. A nation cannot be expected to pay for that all at once. Through the continual circulation of money and the growth and development of the whole community, everything which affords a living to a growing community is established gradually. To ascertain the cost of it not only the expenditure incurred by an industrialist to employ a Native in Johannesburg or anywhere else should be taken into consideration, but also everything which the taxpayers of Johannesburg and the country have to pay, such as what has to be spent on housing and land and services. The cost of a whole series of measures for welfare and the maintenance of order has to be taken into account. Everything it costs the State to provide new railway lines and for subsidizing transport and for all kinds of special machinery to combat subversion must be included. If one only thinks of the tremendous extra cost of housing in such expensive areas, I say that the costs of the developments for the benefit of these communities, spread as they are at the moment, are enormous. The Leader of the Opposition has in fact said that he has no objection if this spreading out takes place as we are planning and it takes place for purely economic reasons, and I presume he will also include security. Will it then cost no more? No one will in fact be able to analyse the financial implications in terms of total expenditure in regard to the one system as contrasted with the other. In 1910 nobody would have been able to calculate what it would cost to bring South Africa to where it is to-day; nobody could even have imagined the position which exists to-day and which provides a living for so many people. When we think of the millions and millions of pounds spent in the past 50 years, I say that nobody at that time could have imagined where all these millions of pounds were to come from to bring about the South Africa of 1961. People would have waved their arms and said it was impossible, just as the Leader of the Opposition does to-day. Therefore I do not hesitate for a moment to face the future with him. We will have to care for all the citizens of the country, whether in terms of the federation plan of the Leader of the Opposition or in terms of a process of separation. In fact, he himself wants to develop the Bantu areas fully in terms of his federation, but then he does not mention the cost! In the process of separation certain things will cost more and others less than in terms of the policy of the Opposition, and vice versa. It is wrong to adopt the attitude that the country is faced here with a tremendous and impossibly expensive process, when nobody can prove why that should be true, except by uttering vague generalities. Nor can I prove why, in my opinion, his process will be more expensive, except by using similar generalities. This is one of the things in respect of which humanity and a State must go forward with faith.

That disposes of what I have to say in regard to the Bantu. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will excuse me if I do not state in detail our policy in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians. Time does not allow me to do so and I have already stated the position very clearly in public, but my colleague who is responsible for these matters can deal with it further. The immediate targets for development have been stated very clearly by me to the Council for Coloured Affairs and it has been widely published that we are planning extensive measures for development over the next few years, a development which will be tremendous and which will bring about everything of which the Coloured community as a whole is capable today.

Nevertheless I want to reply to a few points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The one is that he said that the inference has been drawn that the representation of the Coloureds in this House will disappear when the new type of Council for Coloured Affairs is established, that larger and more representative council. I never said anything like that, and such an inference is not justified. The representation of the Coloureds in this Parliament is simply not relevant in terms of this planning. It will remain in existence as it is.

For how long?

I have said that it will remain in existence. Must I say for ever? I repeat that I have no plan at all, that I have no plan in connection with the development already announced which includes the disappearance of the Coloured representatives here. I am not even considering it.

If they have their own Parliament?

The hon. member looks surprised, but I have already said it twice. What I said was that when we have that Parliament, then in my view the White representatives will still be here. Is that clear now?

The second question asked is whether the Council will be more representative or whether the appointed members will be in the majority. My standpoint is that I would like to see it as a completely representative body, but it may be that they themselves decide that there should be stages of development. However, I believe in a completely representative body for the Coloureds, in any case as soon as possible.

A third point raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps not to-day but previously, was that he or others drew the inference that I had said that they would only have available to them the funds obtained from their community by way of direct taxation. I did not say that. I made two statements, viz. that they would be given the revenue from taxation which we, as the collectors of revenue, would have to collect, and also that we who will be responsible for the financial aspects of that Government will have to give the Coloured Parliament (or that parliamentary institution, whatever you want to call it) further amounts in accordance with their needs and the duties they will have to undertake. Of course these contributions will be limited to legitimate expenditure connected with the carrying out of the duties they have to perform. In other words, we will render further assistance but will not lend an ear to unlimited or wasteful demands. In fact, they will be expected to apply self-discipline in their governmental machinery, in the same way as we have to do. In addition, there will be consultations between the two Governments on matters of common interest, and the making available of funds for the required services is certainly such a matter of common interest.

What about the Press?

In regard to the presence of the Press when such a body as this Coloured Parliament exists, it will be for that body to decide, and not for this Parliament or this Government.

In regard to the Indians, I just want to say briefly that when one is dealing here with a similar separate community a similar separate course of granting self-rule will have to be followed as in the case of the Coloureds. We are also prepared to do that, but I cannot discuss details without being accused again of forcing something on to these people without consulting them. Therefore, before I have a body with which such consultations can be held, as in the case of the Coloureds, I can say no more about their future. In other words, the first step in the case of the Indians must be that a body like the Council for Coloured Affairs must be established as an advisory body, and then we will be able to consult with them, just as with the Coloureds, in regard to their future in terms of the policy of having separate institutions. I say as clearly as in respect of the other groups that the course of the development will be according to the policy of separation being applied in respect of the Coloureds. The consultation will not be on the basis on which the Leader of the Opposition wants to consult with the Indians, viz. that they as a race will be able to represent themselves in a multi-racial Parliament for a start, and later perhaps on the Common Roll with the Whites, as he intimated the development of the Coloureds should be. His consultation with the Indians and mine will take opposite courses.

I now come to my concluding thoughts. Firstly, I want to deal with the question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition, viz. what the potential meaning of our policy is vis-à-vis the international situation. He accused me of having led our country into isolation and international threats. He pointed out that our isolation, according to him, would be even greater because we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth. Once again I must emphasize that we would have had to purchase continued membership of the Commonwealth by abandoning everything in which we believe and which I have once again defended to-day. The Afro-Asian members’ pressure would not even have ceased as the result of any partial surrender like that of the Opposition. As I have already stated in Parliament, I tested it at that Commonwealth Conference which I attended. All kinds of proposals which were aimed at retaining White domination would only have kept us in the Commonwealth temporarily, but the pressure would have continued. The countries concerned there demand nothing less than what they demand in UN. I want to add that when I see how Ghana is able to remain a member of that Commonwealth to-day, even though it allows itself to be influenced by Communism to such a great extent, thereby sinning against the fundamental principle of the Commonwealth, and when I see how India can remain a member of it even though it commits aggression against Britain’s oldest ally, thus violating another principle, I do not believe that this Commonwealth is actually maintaining its basic principles except as against us. I see no difference between the importance of some of the principles which made it impossible for us to remain a member and those principles as applied to others. What will now bind the Commonwealth together, and what is the value of belonging to such a body with its double yardsticks? In other words, in reply to that question I say that we are not in isolation (if it is isolation) through our own fault, but despite our willingness to act decently towards all nations and to co-operate with all people, recognizing the differences and only in respect of common interests.

It is hardly possible for us to change the international situation except by surrendering everything and doing everything they want us to do. If that is to be the price of international support, namely the suicide of a nation, we will not pay that price; then we will defend ourselves to the utmost. But I repeat what I have said previously, namely that their course (one man, one vote in a multi-racial state) is not the only way of complying with the internationally stated principles. The course we are following, and in regard to which we are now again taking a tremendous step forward, can just as easily be tested and justified before the international conscience as the other method. Consequently I hope that the international conscience will make its voice heard with sincerity and that it will not be dominated by selfishness or self-interest in this case to continue adopting the attitude it adopted in the past. Then South Africa will be able, with even more right than before, to accuse the nations of applying double yardsticks. To-day Russia, without being attacked in any way, can continue conquering and suppressing other nations, persecuting individuals and withholding human rights on the most wide-spread scale. All those who condemn us, the whole 100 of them, do not say a word about that at UN. But as far as South Africa is concerned they continue to attack us on the ground of what they only suspect our object to be. Now I say that after what we are doing to-day, after the proof we are giving to-day in regard to the liberation of nations, I hope this international action taken against us and the international understanding of our policy will change, as indeed it ought to.

I must, however, also pose the question whether any alternative solution, particularly that of the Opposition, has a bigger chance of bringing about a change in the international situation. What right has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to ask me this question if they, in respect of their own policy, can give themselves no answer other than the one I am giving in respect of ours, namely the hope of reasonableness? What is the alternative solution? Racial federation is based on the principle that the various other Coloured groups in various ways will be given a limited franchise, but only subject to the domination of the White vote so that White leadership and White control will be retained. In the case of the Progressive Party, it is suggested that the test should be “civilization”, and that the franchise will be given only to civilized people. This is an obvious ruse in order to get large numbers of White people to support them for at least as long as they are still trying to come into power, with the assurance that will be decisive.

Let us test the chances that these two policies with those basic characteristics have to change the international situation. Will it satisfy the Bantu agitators here, those people, including Luthuli, who ask for one man, one vote and for Black domination? In the light of what we see happening to the north of us in Africa and even now in the adjoining Federation, will that put a stop to the demands of the Bantu here, particularly the Bantu agitators and the bodies established by them such as the A.N.C. and the P.A.C., which the Leader of the Opposition wants to allow to exist, even when we say that they should not continue to exist? Will that therefore bring about internal peace and contentment? Will the African states which know only one demand, i.e. one man, one vote, be satisfied with ruses to keep the Whites in power for a little while longer under the guise of equality? Will they be satisfied with its so-called civilization test applied with the same object? And what about the Western nations? Will they, as the result of such subterfuges, energetically oppose the demands of the Afro-Asian nations and sacrifice their own interests which now dictate their course of action? Or will they simply follow step for step—perhaps whilst voicing certain protestations and making certain attempts—when increasingly higher demands are made by the Afro-Asian bloc? Will they not rather be able to regard the system proposed by the Government as a basis on which they can tell those nations: “No. Here we have a method which does not violate international morality and international demands.” Will they not realize that in terms of the Government’s policy the full franchise is in fact being given, although separated from that of the Whites, and that South Africa is here doing what the metropolitan powers themselves did, viz. liberating nations? Will they not rather realize that under our system we are doing what the Black communities wanted, viz. the liberation of states? Will the Western nations not rather feel satisfied on the basis of our standpoint—when they become mature enough to oppose all the harm that is being done under the leadership of certain groups like the communist bloc and other blocs—that they are standing on a moral basis? I think they will. I also think that the economic consequences to South Africa under the policy of the Leader of the Opposition are much more dangerous than they will be in terms of the Government’s policy. In terms of his policy, because in spite of his protestations it will result in Black domination, the economic development of South Africa will not remain safeguarded. In terms of the Government’s policy there will, however, be the White man, who at least in his own area, by his stability and skill in government which instil confidence, will be able to offer the security to everybody who invests money here that there will be reasonable safety. I therefore believe that the future of a White state with Black neighbours whom it assists is better and safer than in a multi-racial country in which there is a continual struggle for domination and where the Black man will eventually dominate.

I conclude by asking why the United Party introduced its motion. The United Party introduced this motion—I have no illusions about it—because they want to frighten people in South Africa with the alleged consequences of our policy. Such attempts do not frighten us. Our national sentiment is too pure and public opinion is too well informed for that. The alternatives are too dangerous. The people of South Africa will prefer the new South Africa we propose here, with all the chances I have mentioned for greater peace within and without the country. The people will, I believe, stand together in order to see justice done. South Africa has to-day withstood the test of honesty. I ask myself whether the world and the great powers can stand up to the same test.

We have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to tell him that in my opinion this is a very tragic day. This is probably one of the most important speeches and one of the most tragic speeches that we have had since this Government came into power, tragic for all races, people of all colours in the Republic of South Africa. I think that this day will be looked upon as Black Tuesday in the history of South Africa in the years that lie ahead. The tragedy is that the hon. the Prime Minister obviously believes what he has been telling us this afternoon. That is the tragedy. I hope South Africa is not going to believe that. I am not one of those who has taken the Prime Minister’s statements lightly in the past. I have taken them very seriously from the start, but, Sir, unfortunately very large sections, including hon. members opposite have not believed those statements. Many of them have not believed them. [Laughter.] If they are laughing at themselves, Mr. Speaker, they well deserve it. I hope they are now going to believe it, that they are going to believe the details, that they are going to believe what the Prime Minister has told them. I hope South Africa is going to face this question now, take it in detail, not only the White people but the non-White people of this country as well. Let us just realize exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister has proposed, where he proposes to take South Africa. A little United Nations here within the geographical boundaries of the Republic with the White people trying to play the part of the United States of America and a little United Nations, and the president of the United States, Sir, our Prime Minister, laying down dogma, deciding how the little nations of the United Nations are to behave themselves, talking about the Afro-Asians and all the rest of it, painting this picture of the little new colonialism. It is a concept which is completely fatal. Indeed the hon. the Prime Minister did not say that he was not in favour of this dismemberment. He went on in his speech justifying his dismemberment policy. Let South Africa take to heart the speech the hon. the Prime Minister has made to-day. I move—

I second.