I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

When we adjourned last night, Sir, I was saying that I hoped that at last, not only the members of the Nationalist Party here in Parliament, but their supporters outside and the public at large, appreciated that the Prime Minister has meant all along what he has been saying in regard to the independence of certain Bantu States which he proposes to create as a matter of fundamental policy. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite seem to question that but I hope they will cast their minds back to the recent election and the way in which those of us who made this assertion were called outrageous liars for suggesting such a thing. That was what happened. And I hope that those people will now bear in mind that they have the words of the Prime Minister to bear out the statements that we made during the course of the election. The Prime Minister has now completely put the matter beyond dispute. He has chosen the Transkei for his first experiment; his first experiment with what I will call, political limitation. He, no doubt, from interstellar space, will look down on his fledgeling Bantustans to fly upwards with their newly found wings, but to whom will they fly, Mr. Speaker? Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister: They will fly to the United Nations. That is where they will fly to. The Prime Minister yesterday has launched an impulse in the political life of South Africa of which he cannot possibly see the repercussions. No man can foretell the end, but it can be completely fatal to South Africa; of that I have no doubt whatsoever. And the Prime Minister cannot control it. We pointed out repeatedly in this House when this matter has been debated that we were but passing shadows on the stage and that it was wrong for the Prime Minister to start movements of this kind and to believe that he could control them. He cannot control them. Why did he make that statement yesterday? He made it under duress, under pressure. The Prime Minister cannot get away with it by saying that he has done it because of a time-table to which he has been adhering. Only a couple of months ago he decided that he would not give way to pressure; that he would do these things in his own good time; that he would go step by step as he determined in his wisdom. The Prime Minister chose to be a little facetious at the expense of my hon. Leader when he talked about my hon. Leader and his policy. But may I remind the hon. the Prime Minister of what a predecessor of his had to say—the late Dr. D. F. Malan—in that famous letter of his which he wrote to the Rev. John Piersma. This was not so long ago. Hon. members opposite will have the letter.

They don’t want it.

He said—

Why does the hon. the Prime Minister criticize my hon. Leader on account of his policy? Why does he not go back and criticize the late Prime Minister? The most the late Dr. Malan foresaw was the possibility of two states, but the Prime Minister is not going to be deterred by small considerations of that kind—he is coming with eight. He himself talks about fragmentation and the dispersal of our White population; I said last night that it was an evil day for all people in South Africa when the Prime Minister made that speech yesterday; it was as evil a day for the non-Whites as for the Whites, because, Sir, if one thing is clear it is this that not only has the Prime Minister given way to pressure but he has done it in the face of what the vast mass of the Bantu people themselves desire in South Africa and surely he must know it. I think it was only about a year ago that Dr. Eiselen, then Secretary of Bantu Administration, wrote that article, I think, in Optima, in which he said that there would be self-government for the Bantu people and then he came to the point and he said categorically “but falling short of sovereign independence”. The Prime Minister talks to-day about giving certain powers and holding certain powers in reserve, powers which will be under the control of the Central Government. I say again, he cannot control that position. He cannot say when those powers are going to be taken from him. This is not a matter which he can determine. As soon as he has started these non-European people on the road to independence, they will go on the road to independence. All this talk about good neighbourliness and matters of that kind are not going to get us anywhere. [Interjections.] Behind it all, the Prime Minister in his eagerness to defend the moral basis of his concept, to defend the reason why the people in the Transkei must have self-government, showed with every word that he spoke that he was speaking under pressure; that he had to do something and that he had to do it quickly. Why did the Prime Minister take all this space in the overseas newspapers to defend his policy if it was not precisely to meet that contingency? [interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member behind me talked about “your lies” as a result of a remark by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). I ask that he be asked to withdraw it.

Order! Who was the hon. member who said that?

The hon. member behind me. [Laughter.] It was the hon. member further back. [Laughter.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) referred to the observations made by the hon. member for South Coast as “your lies”.

He never did.

Did the hon. member for Langlaagte use those words?

No, Mr. Speaker, I did not. I appeal to the Chair that false accusation against me be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I heard quite distinctly the allegation that the hon. member for South Coast was lying and I ask that the hon. member who made that allegation show the decency to stand up and to admit it.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point? I heard the remark. The hon. member was not referring to what the hon. member for South Coast had said but he was referring in general to the lies published overseas and that the space in the overseas newspapers were acquired to contradict those lies.

Which hon. member said that?

Sir, I did not say “your lies”. If the hon. member has a guilty conscience I cannot help it.

Order! The hon. member for South Coast may continue.

I was saying, Sir, that the taking by the Government of this newspaper space overseas, was designed to give the Government an opportunity of giving a moral answer to criticism which has taken place in the past on the ground that the apartheid policy of the Government was lacking on a moral basis. I repeat, that shows again the psychological pressure on the hon. the Prime Minister to do something to meet that criticism. It has built up until the Prime Minister has come now, out of time—and he knows it—long before he would have judged it to be right and fitting to give self-government to the Transkei, and rushed in in a hurry and under pressure to do something to stifle the criticism. This pressure has broken the Prime Minister; it has broken this man of granite from top to bottom; the pressure not only of the outside world but from within South Africa. There has been pressure from many of the people behind him, religious people, God-fearing folk, who are very concerned that there is no moral basis for the actual practical policy as distinct from what had been enunciated by word of mouth and which the Government was following. Why has all this been done; what is the big argument behind it all? To preserve White South Africa! Yes, says the Prime Minister, we can make sacrifices; we can even have fragmentation of our country. It was even suggested that we could allow the Russians to get a foothold in these sovereign independent states that are to be created. We must make all these sacrifices; we must be prepared for it but it is to save White South Africa! We come then at once to the vital points on which the Prime Minister and his policy fall down immediately, ab initio. How do they save White South Africa when on their own figures there are more non-Whites than Whites in the Republic after he has finished with his Bantustan concept? How does he save White South Africa if, when he has his eight non-White states in the Republic, there will be more non-Whites than Whites in the White areas of South Africa? That is the crucial question which the Prime Minister has never attempted to answer. He did not attempt to deal with it yesterday. The non-Whites who will be left in the so-called White area, the Republic of South Africa, will be the more highly educated, the more experienced members of the Bantu family, the Coloured people and the Asiatics. Those will be the folk who will be left in the so-called White area.

How are you going to save South Africa?

I am sorry, Sir, my time is limited. The hon. the Minister of Lands is entitled to an answer and I hope that an opportunity will present itself to give him his answer. But before he asks me for solutions, may I ask him to go back to the speech which he himself made at Humansdorp only about a year ago. I gave the policy of my leader during the recent election and his agents had an opportunity to question me and what happened? Over a cup of coffee later on they said: “You know, Mr. Mitchell, there is a great deal in what you say. The way you put it we think there is a lot to be said for it.” But what did the Nationalist members say about his Humansdorp speech? They cut him down, and the man who really cut him down was that special commissioner at Umtata. With regard to these Bantustans: The Prime Minister says that this is the moral basis on which he hopes to save White South Africa. Does the Prime Minister really believe that his statement of yesterday is going to avoid further criticism of South Africa? Does he not realize that statement has now opened the flood gates of criticism from all over the world? He himself coined the phrase “economic colonialism”. Does he not realize that he is now going to be blamed for being a colonialist and for having colonies in the form of these new Bantustans? They will not be independent states. The same old formula is being used: There will be reserved powers under the control of the Central Government! And what is that except colonialism? The Bantustans will be nothing but colonies, on the Prime Minister’s own showing. Do not let us make any mistake about it whatever, the Prime Minister and his Government, and South Africa unfortunately, are now going to be criticized as never before even by people who would have been our friends because the hon. the Prime Minister has neither done one thing or the other. He has neither given the Bantustans independence nor has he kept them as an integral part of South Africa, an integral part of the Republic with certain powers which are extended to them in the local sphere, but nevertheless an integral part of the Republic. He still holds out the future of sovereign independence. He has now put that completely beyond dispute and in my opinion he has now made a mistake which can involve us in internal bloodshed by saying to the people in the Transkei “You will have your own citizenship”. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, do hon. members opposite realize, after all the trouble and travail that we endured in this country because of dual nationality, that he is now deliberately, of set purpose, creating a new nationality? When the other seven Bantustans are brought into being they will not have a common nationality. We will have eight Bantu states with their own citizens, their own citizenship and a common citizenship in the Republic. It is incredible.

Where do you get that?

I get that from the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech and I get it from his Hansard which I re-read this morning.

The Prime Minister has failed in another most important particular to take South Africa into his confidence. I want to press him in that regard and that is in respect of the boundaries of the Bantustans. Even the first one—and this is proof of the haste with which the Prime Minister has rushed in—has not got its boundaries defined. In my own province of Natal the Department of Native Trust are still continuing to buy White men’s farms. For what purpose? If the Transkei is to stay at the boundary between Natal and the Cape, they why are they buying land in Natal, north of the boundary? Why do they do that?

That was decided in 1936.

Surely if they are buying those farms it is for the purpose of handing them to the Bantu? Is the Bantustan concept then for the Transkei to come across the boundary from the Cape into Natal? There is no other explanation. If Umtata is to go Black in the fullness of time as the Prime Minister decreed yesterday, then is Harding also to go Black.

I now want to go further north and I want to deal with the other side of my province, namely the Zululand position. I say that the Prime Minister cannot determine the rate at which these Bantustans will travel. It is certain that having promised independence to the Transkei, Zululand and the other Bantustans will immediately demand their independence. Whatever the position may be in the Transkei, let me again issue a word of warning—which I have done before in this House—Zululand is not an enclave like the Transkei, within the body politic of the Union; Zululand is not a piece of land like Basutoland. Zululand has its hinterland on the Portuguese East African territory, with a border of over 70 miles long and there is not a police post. The police posts which are there are not on the border. There are no customs posts—nothing at all. What is there to prevent the ingress and egress of people and arms; anything you like, Sir? That is the position with regard to Zululand and they are proud people. They are not going to be messed about. When they have been promised something they are going to demand it; it must be given to them now, now, now. Insofar as his statements regarding the disposal of Crown Lands in Zululand, will earn the honourable the Minister of Lands no thanks—he will not be thanked for handing over 600,000 acres of land to the Zulus. They will say in the most categorical terms that he was compelled to give it to them. They are taking it to-day. They are pouring in their thousands on to that unoccupied Crown land and the Government is doing nothing to get rid of them and it can’t and it knows that it can’t. The Minister of Bantu Administration was warned by a honourable member of the Other Place and myself last year as to what was happening. The Bantu are pouring in there and I say that nothing is being done. In the Mercury of last night there appeared a report of another killing of a game guard. He was killed by an assegai thrown by a member of a big marauding party; a second assegai pierced his leg. There was a report of two of the White rangers coming under fire and why? Because they were upholding the law. There has been a fourth outrage within a period of about three weeks namely a band of about 300 armed men who had to be met by force because they marched in there to take up plots of land inside the game reserve. The Government cannot stop it; it is not attempting to stop it. The Bantu have the impression that this land is coming to them, they are going to have it, they are going to have self-government and they are going to take it. And what is the Government doing? Absolutely nothing. Does it matter to the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet who are a long, long way away from Zululand if the lives of White people are imperilled up there? What does it matter to them if Bantu game rangers are slaughtered? And we have now had three of them slaughtered during recent months. What does it matter to them? They are a long way away from the trouble; somebody else can take the knock. The public of Natal do not return Nationalist members to Parliament, so what does it matter if there is fragmentation of Natal and a dispersal of its White population? Sir, it took a man who is not a South African to come and think up the dismemberment of our country like this. Because he gets criticized by the outside world he comes with a scheme like this, a scheme which will mean the destruction of South Africa.

Now you are chasing away all your United Party supporters.

The hon. the Minister does not care because he is a long way away from it all. What part is he going to play? He is handing over agriculture to the Bantu in the Transkei. What a shameful thing, Sir. He cannot handle it; he has failed in his whole portfolio. Having failed in his job and with the Prime Minister’s connivance, he wants to make a virtue out of it. He will hand over agriculture to this newly emerging state, this independent Bantustan. He will let them handle their own agriculture. The hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday that Bantu farmers were not as experienced, not as clever, technically, and not as able as European farmers in the husbandry of their lands. Of course, they are not. One of the first considerations in connection with the reclamation of the Transkei land for agricultural and Pastoral purposes is the removal of two million Bantu. The land must be given a rest if you wish to deal with it properly, but does the Government tackle that problem? Of course they do not tackle it. They are trying to get away from it. They are trying to make a virtue of the fact that they are handing over agriculture to the Bantu in the Transkei. The Government knows. Sir, that the trouble last year was triggered off by their so-called “land improvement” scheme. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration knows it. The trouble in the Harding district two years ago was triggered off by their land improvement scheme, a scheme with which they have not proceeded any further. So being unable to tackle the problem adequately, the Government now hands it over to the Bantustan. I want to put this to the Government and I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister this: Does he not believe that this land is still part of our South Africa. Does he know that soil erosion is going on and that our water is running to waste? The terrible erosion that is allowed to continue in the Transkei, is that not taking place on land which is part of South Africa? Is that soil that is running down the rivers into the sea, not South African soil? Is that a foreign country indeed? Mr. Speaker, this is moral cowardice, an abdication of the rights of a Government that has failed to govern a multi-racial people. They say: We cannot govern these people so let us tell them that they can get on by themselves. That is the big basis of the story that we heard from the Prime Minister yesterday. What is the meaning of this word “independence” that the Prime Minister used so frequently yesterday? Up at Umtata yesterday, outside on the sports field, a mass of loudspeakers was erected. Everything was in readiness for the broadcasting of the Prime Minister’s speech. I believe about 300 Bantu turned up to listen and one of them was the Chairman of the Territorial Council, Kaiser Matanzima. He was asked, on the spot, about this new independence which the Prime Minister had just given them and his immediate reaction was: Well, of course, I have heard what we are to be given but naturally we will have to consult with the Government because we want a good deal more than that. Of course, they want a good deal more than that. Where is the Government going to draw the line? The Prime Minister did not go into much detail. We want much more detail and one of the things that we are seeking from the Prime Minister now, also from the garrulous members behind him, who must surely have the answers to all these questions, is this: What precisely are the powers which the Government propose to hand over to the independent authority, as the first step? When the Prime Minister talks about these Bantustans having the right of self defence, or being able to have their own defence forces later on, will he now give us his time-table and tell us more about those defence forces. He talks about foreign affairs, defence and justice, partly. What part, Sir? What laws are to run in this Bantustan country where they have their own citizenship? I will not have any citizenship in the Bantustan; I will have my South African citizenship, but a member of a Bantustan will have my citizenship.

No.

Oh, yes. My hon. friend need not interrupt me. Does he not know his Prime Minister’s own policy? They will have citizenship in the Republic and they will have their citizenship in their own Bantustan; they will have dual nationality, two citizenships. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister and all those garrulous members what laws will apply to the Bantustan ab initio, once the Government has transferred power in respect of those matters where he proposes to transfer power? What laws will apply? Is the proclamation under the Natal Code which was applied for certain purposes to the Cape to remain? Are our laws in regard to subversive activities to apply to the Transkei? Are our laws in the rest of the Republic not to apply? I would like somebody in authority on the side of the Government to give me an answer.

The only authority has spoken.

What laws are going to apply? If the Prime Minister is painting a picture whereby there is going to be a certain amount of financial autonomy and the Minister of Finance is going to act as tax collector for the Pondos in respect of all those members of the Transkei Bantu community who are outside the geographical boundaries of the Transkei territorial authorities—you will see, Sir, how the question of boundaries comes in at once. If a taxpayer then says he falls outside the Bantu authority, the Prime Minister cannot tell us what the position is, because he says we are leaving the question of boundaries open. But surely it is one of the essential features of an independent state that it should know where its boundaries are. You cannot, in regard to matters of taxation, say: You are either my taxpayer or you are not; if you are my taxpayer you must pay, but in any case let us just take a chance on it and I think you had better pay. You cannot do that. How will the Minister of Finance determine, from the point of view of collecting the tax for the independent Bantustan, whether the taxpayers are within or without the territory, and under what laws? You see, Sir, if we are going to keep the whole of our laws encompassing the people of the Transkei while they are allowed to frame a set of laws of their own which are superimposed on top of ours, indeed, we may well be blamed for this being merely a new form of colonialism. What laws are going to govern internal security? We would like to know that. Whatever may be the position in the Transkei, what will be the position in Zululand? Who will keep order there? To-day this Government does not keep order in Zululand. In spite of warning after warning, they are still not keeping order. Let us go back to the history of Zululand and what led to its incorporation. There was continual trouble on our boundary. I would remind hon. members opposite that at the time when the Transvaal was annexed by Sir Theophilus Shepstone, it was done because of the threat to the Transvaal by the Zulus.

That was the excuse.

It had nothing whatever to do with purely European politics. That was the reason, and the continual threat to the Transvaal by the Zulus remained and continued to remain. Sir, the Zulu people are not a homogeneous people. We as White people continually talk about the Zulus and the Zulu nation, but they are not a homogeneous nation. That is purely a generalization by White people. They never use it themselves. The Zulu people, as we think of them, are the Usutu and the Mandhlakazi, two mutually bitterly hostile sections of the Zulu people. With the grant of self-government to Zululand, which must now come, who will keep the internal peace? Do we go back to 1877, to see what a map of Natal will look like? The Prime Minister has launched the Government on this—I was going to say political escapade—on this political development, without having thought it out and weighed the chances. External and internal pressure have brought him to do it, although he knows it is premature. He has reached the stage where he will do it whatever happens, even though it is premature. He cannot now resist the progress of the Transkeian Bantustan, and he cannot resist the claims of the others, who will demand to be treated in like matter. I defy anybody to argue now that a halt can be called to the claims of the other Bantustans who want self-government, particularly after the recent speeches of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in Zululand when he was telling the people there at a chiefs’ meeting about the wonderfully good time that was in store for them when they are allowed to govern themselves, only just recently. Now they are going to say: If it is good for the Pondos, it is good for us. Mr. Speaker, who keeps the peace? Who preserves our northern border in those circumstances? What becomes of the White people in Zululand? Theirs is a lost cause. If the Prime Minister cannot protect the White people of Umtata and is prepared to stand up here openly in regard to the fragmentation of South Africa, as he calls it, that the White people of Umtata must go as well as the other White people in the towns there, what will save Empangeni and Eshowe and the rest of the White towns up there? They are of lesser compass than Umtata. They have not got that long history behind them which Umtata has had. They cannot possibly be maintained, and I ask the Prime Minister whether he has in fact visualized that as part of the plan, whether that is part of the sacrifice he is prepared to make, which he is asking us to pay. Because he is not paying it; we are paying it. South Africa is paying it. What price are we paying? The price of a White South Africa. When the period of tumult is passed, whatever it brings, we will have tribal troubles and boundary troubles all over again, civil war within the boundaries of these states themselves. The Minister of Bantu Administration knows perfectly well that the trouble is not settled in Pondoland. It is only quiet as long as the White police are there and those sections of the army which were sent there to maintain law and order. Take them away and one of the first men to pay the price will be the same Kaiser Matanzima. He will be one of the first to go. The same applies to Zululand. We are to sit in Natal with the concept of the Xhosa right across our border, right into and enveloping Harding, and the Zululand concept coming down below the Tugela. What becomes of Stanger? Does the Prime Minister and those who sit behind him believe that the Zulus will allow Stanger and the grave of Chaka to remain in the hands of the White people, when they bring their Bantustan down to within a few miles of it? If they have got sacred places, so have other people, and the sacred places of the Zulu people are just as sacred to them as those of other people. But the Government has started this and they cannot be heard to complain if those demands are made. After the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, the Bantu of South Africa can come and ask him in the politest fashion but in the firmest manner to implement the promises he made, for the reasons that he himself gave. He has provided every claimant for a Bantustan in South Africa with the reason, moral and otherwise, and those claims will be made and they will be refused at the peril of South Africa, because I repeat that when these emergent people have got their wings, will they be good neighbours of ours? No, they will fly to UNO to try to get the destruction of the White Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, a very curious position has now developed in this debate. To start off, we have had something which I have never seen before, a conditional motion of no confidence. It said that the Government will forfeit the confidence of the House if it fails to take the public into its confidence adequately in regard to certain vital matters at this time. If we do not take the public into our confidence at this time, it will cause the Government to forfeit the confidence of this House. But now we have this extraordinary position, that the Prime Minister has, at this time, taken the public fully into his confidence on all those matters which are referred to by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Where are the boundaries?

He has taken the House into his confidence on the boundaries, too, if hon. members would only listen. Now we have this extraordinary position that the condition on which this motion of no confidence was to rest has not been fulfilled, and confidence is therefore not forfeited and logically the motion must lapse.

There is a further very interesting statement here, that “the implementation of the positive aspects of his policy of apartheid or separate development” is referred to. I am very glad the hon. member has done that, because it is now an admission that there is a positive aspect.

Where? [Interjection.]

The hon. member in his speech, too, said he believed there was a positive aspect. Then the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) must ask him about it. He said the Government will not disclose that positive aspect because the Government is afraid of losing support when the large sacrifices involved will become known—and hence his motion. He wants to put the Government into the position where they must now disclose the position, and then he hopes, if his motion has any meaning, that will frighten away support from the Government, and it will probably turn to him. But this grievance of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been fully met. The Government was not afraid; it was totally unafraid and it gave those particulars. The Prime Minister disclosed those plans in such great detail that at this stage it almost becomes necessary to take a look once more at the wood, forgetting the trees for a moment. The grounds for the motion have fallen away. The grievance of the hon. member has been met, and fully met. I see people say that the hon. the Prime Minister gave too full detail. These interesting features, but also the paramount importance of the announcement of the hon. the Prime Minister in a massive, courageous and illuminating speech, have caused me to cast my speech in a form which is rather unusual in a no-confidence debate. The hon. member for South Coast will pardon me if I do not deal fully with what he has said.

Answer his questions.

I will. I just want to mention a few points, but this is not the line that I really wanted to take. But I think there are a few things that I cannot allow to pass without comment. We are accustomed to the wild statements of the hon. member for South Coast and his still wilder logic. The one great fortune for South Africa is that the pernicious mischief which he pronounces here from time to time has no effect or influence outside a very narrow circle. That is all to the good, because we can discount, by his very excesses, any good point that he may have had in his case. But I want to give just a few examples.

The hon. member has referred to the Humansdorp speech of the hon. the Minister of Lands. He has not read the latest speech of the hon. the Minister of Lands in the course of the last election, where he referred specifically, point by point, to his Humansdorp speech and then made the point that every single point he had made at Humansdorp had been carried out. So much for the knowledgability of the hon. member for South Coast.

The hon. member has also told us about all the dangers of what he calls the policy of Bantustans, but he has failed to tell us how we are going to avoid those same dangers by reason of the existence, in one case, as an enclave in South Africa, of the Protectorates, of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland, who are going the way and have proceeded much further than any of these so-called Bantustans. The hon. member, with all his wild statements, cannot stem that development, and he has not said what dangers that will hold. All the dangers he has mentioned here, will also be inherent in that position and he can do nothing at all about it. But he has not placed before us the alternative. It is very easy to name a number of dangers and difficulties that you will have under this scheme, but if I had to take the time of the House I could give many more cogent dangers, if we were to follow the alternative policy which the hon. member has seen fit not to explain here.

What is the alternative policy? Hon. members there cannot avoid the necessity of admitting that you cannot withhold political power from the Bantu for all time. You have got to give them the franchise. The choice is whether you give them the franchise in a multi-racial state together with the White man, or do you give it to him separately in his own State? If you give it to him in this multi-racial state and treat him as the co-owner of your house, and not merely as a neighbour, there are certain implications that you have to expect, certain facts which are hard and obdurate. You have to accept that numerically they have the superiority. You must accept the fact that their capacity for exercising the democratic processes, in a multi-racial Parliament and in a multiracial South Africa, is not very great. I want to refer hon. members like the hon. member for South Coast to what another member who for many years graced the benches of the Opposition said when he dealt with this question of why it is that we dare not in a multi-racial South Africa give the vote to the Bantu—and ultimately if we do not give it to him somewhere else we will have to give it to him here, and eventually on a basis of equality. We cannot escape that fact. This is what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said in this House exactly five years ago, on 24 January 1957. He dealt with the question, why it is that the White man is not prepared to give the franchise to the Natives in South Africa, and he said there were two reasons. The first is that he is not by culture and experience or by education capable of taking a sensible part in democratic processes. But, he said, that will pass away. He said there was a second reason, namely this:

That is what is happening to-day at UN. There is a multi-racial organization. Let that be a lesson. Mr. Oppenheimer proceeded—

And in parenthesis I say in a multi-racial society. He then continues—

The choice is then whether we will give the Native the vote with us and have him as co-tenant of our home, of our household, or whether we will give him the vote next to us and treat him as a neighbour, and try to get on a proper basis with him there. All these things that the hon. member for South Coast said about assegais have been happening for years and years, but they are the people whom he wants to take within the bosom of his household! Well, I think we can leave the hon. member there. I am afraid he suffers congenitally from a fever and this is merely one of its manifestations. I want to turn to a more positive and constructive side of the matter.

Before I do that, I want to say something which the Prime Minister did not say yesterday, and that is that this broad plan of action which he put before the House yesterday commanded the unanimous support of his Cabinet and of his caucus and was received with acclamation by both these bodies. This broad plan of action, economic and political, was sketched very fully by the Prime Minister yesterday. It cannot be a detailed blueprint at this stage, lest one of its main virtues disappears. I think we would have had to sacrifice one of the greatest virtues of the plan, namely that consultations with regard to its further working out must take place with the Transkeian authorities. There is the question of the constitution, the question of boundaries, as the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday, and the question of future relations. It is not a matter for either Government to act on its own. In all similar cases where we have had to deal with similar constitutional problems, the custom has been that they are thrashed out in consultation between the two Governments, and that is what will have to happen here also. It is not for the one to impose; it is for the two to discuss.

The principle and the policy underlying the plan brought before the House yesterday was approved by this House in January 1959, and this programme of action is merely the logical next step to the declaration of the Prime Minister in regard to Bantu homelands in January 1959. It is merely the implementation of that policy at an accelerated rate. That is all. This whole principle was not decided in what the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday, but it was inherent in what the House decided in 1959. It is not only logical but it is realistic to do as the Star states in its issue of last Friday—

That is a by-product which we hope to achieve. But the main thing is that we owe it to ourselves; we owe it to our consciences to implement policies in which we believe and to which we adhere. That is what we are doing here. But it is not only a logical and realistic step; it is also a courageous step because, like all truly great steps, this one was taken in faith. It was a step which was taken in the belief that it is morally right, and for that reason it commends itself to us. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that the Government is under no illusions as to the difficulties or dangers of carrying out this policy. He has made it equally clear that we are not deterred from our duty by these dangers. We know they are ahead of us, but we also know that there is no other way to preserve what we cherish and love, no other way to ensure a permanent home for both the White man and the Bantu in South Africa, with justice to all, also to the White man.

The value of this step which we are taking, in order to assess that, we must go back to the Prime Minister’s declaration in 1959. I said broadly what that line was. We deliberately chose that, if we had to give the franchise, we would rather give it to the Bantu in his own area than with us in a multi-racial state. What was the reaction to that decision of ours? The reaction even of many responsible people who did not appreciate the difficulties in the way, who did not perhaps understand what was being done behind the scenes, was broadly this: On paper this is a very good scheme; it is a scheme which satisfies the legitimate demands of the Bantu and also of our own conscience, but there were two lines of criticism. The first was that the Government was not sincere; that this was merely a bluff on their part, a snare and a delusion.

It is still a bluff.

It was said that we had no real wish to implement what we stated in 1959. The second criticism was this: In any case this whole scheme was impracticable and would never be implemented …

It still is.

… by reason of the sacrifices which it would necessarily entail. The value of what is done now, of what the Prime Minister’s statement did yesterday, is that in the first place he gave to the world and to our own people an earnest of our sincerity. He showed that it was not a bluff. He showed that it was not an attempt to delude anybody, not even ourselves. And in the second place, it demonstrates our belief in the practicability of that policy which we accepted in 1959. We are now prepared to prove that it can be carried out, but the most important value of what has taken place is that the moral basis of our policy which even the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to admit from time to time, is now given reality and substance instead of remaining what many people considered an unproved paper morality.

There are other more materialistic benefits to South Africa in the step that we have taken. Sir, our policy of separate development has been under fire, on the one hand because its negative aspects have been accentuated to the exclusion of the positive aspects, but furthermore, in the eyes of many people, what we did on the positive side, what we did for the economic and the cultural development of the Bantu, counts for nothing so long as he does not get the franchise. That is the view of many people, and that is why our policy, in spite of its positive achievements in uplifting the Bantu economically and culturally and as far as his health is concerned, has been dismissed as nothing, because we have withheld the vote from him. This implementation of apartheid, as outlined by the Prime Minister, clothes with meaning and gives content to what was in the eyes of many a purely nebulous concept at its best and, at its worst, a blatant distortion or caricature of our true policy. We can now give it—we do give it—its proper content. We are trying to erase that false image. We are now giving a faithful image of our policy as we conceive it, not as an instrument of oppression, as it is represented by so many, but as a means to reduce discrimination gradually by conceding to others what we demand for ourselves. And the success with which we will carry through our Bantu homelands policy will be the measure of our success in gradually eliminating discrimination in South Africa. I say and I believe that for all those who are not blinded with malice or hate towards South Africa, this image, this true picture of our policy, as exemplified in practice, as it will appear in its practical implementation, I say that true picture, instead of the false image, must have far-reaching effects, more far-reaching that we can perhaps imagine at the moment.

There is another benefit. In my discussions overseas with financiers and bankers, it was made quite clear to me that the greatest scare for capital—apart from the general impression that South Africa was part of Africa and to treat Africa as a unit—was firstly the fear that the White man here would lose economic and political control in South Africa and the mere possibility of that brought up visions of economic chaos from the experience of those investors in other parts of the world. It brought up visions of a loss in the value of investments, it brought up visions of dangers of nationalization and even confiscation. The second danger was the fear of a racial explosion. That was the second reason which scared foreign capital. It was feared that there would be racial explosion if we continued to sit on the lid of the Bantu franchise. We accepted that explicitly as long ago as 1959, that the franchise could not be withheld indefinitely from the Bantu; that this upsurge of Black nationalism could not be contained outside the Limpopo; that in some way or other we had to accede to the legitimate demand for the franchise. And we had before us the choice of the two ways of conferring the franchise to which I have already referred. The Government decided to choose the other way, not to give them the franchise in a multiracial South Africa, but to provide them with the franchise in their own part, ultimately exclusively. That was the choice we made, and I think it was a wise choice. What we are doing now is merely to carry out that policy which we enunciated explicitly in 1959.

There is a further advantage in what we have done, and that is that we believe in an economically integrated greater South Africa with political separation. We know from our experience that in the Common Market the countries there concerned also desire economic integration, but they had to build this desire for economic unity on the foundation of old, long-existing politically separate and independent units. We are spared that travail. We need not build economic unity from a political diversity. Here our task is easier. We have to preserve the economic unity which already exists, while allowing political separation and political self-government.

But the greatest benefit will ultimately accrue to the Bantu himself if he is prepared to learn from the bitter experience of the Congo and elsewhere in Africa that political and economic stability is his greatest need and that political and economic stability is not compatible with undue haste and ill-considered ambitions. What the Transkei self-government must have is ordered development, not political and economic chaos. Its citizens must be prepared for the responsibilities that will ultimately fall on them. They must be properly equipped for the tasks that lie ahead. May I just read a very interesting extract from an address by Mr. Garner who has had very great experience of under-developed countries. Let me quote what he said in his valedictory speech after an experience of 14 years as vice-president of the International Bank and as President of the International Finance Corporation. He says this—

He then elaborates on that and then he goes on to say—

That, I think, is true to a very great extent in respect of the Transkei or the other areas, and that is what we are prepared to give them, so as not to have the chaos that we have had in other countries where the public administration was not sufficiently advanced to cope with the problems with which it had to deal.

What should be guarded against and specifically guarded against is the exploitation of the area of the Transkei by Whites or by non-nationals. Any form of economic colonialism will not only be abhorrent to world opinion, but, more important it will also endanger our policy and our objectives for Transkeian self-government, and therefore we should eschew even the shadow of it.

Lastly, Sir, there is a distinct possibility that the Republic will be able to get assistance for the development of the Transkei from the International Development Association which, it is true, is primarily for underdeveloped countries. But its constitution is wide enough to cover assistance, for example, to the United Kingdom in respect of its underdeveloped Protectorates; and when our constitutional position vis-à-vis the Transkei corresponds more or less with the constitutional position of the United Kingdom vis-à-vis its Protectorates, then I can see no logical reason why the Republic should not qualify for assistance in the same way as the United Kingdom, in working for the development of the Transkei as they worked for the development of the Protectorates.

Sir, those are the advantages, material and otherwise. But I think this is a momentous step that we have taken—and that is the only respect in which I agree with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell); it is a momentous step—but because it is a momentous step it also brings responsibilities and opportunities to every citizen of the Republic. The principles of political and economic development of the Transkei, the giving of the franchise to the Bantu there rather than with us, giving him self-government, the basis of consultation at the highest level—these are all matters which cannot be lightly opposed if we are to be realistic, if we are to be true to our conscience. Even if I were to concede, even if only for the purposes of this argument, that there has been delay in implementing our policy, that is no reason why the broad programme which we now put before the country, this broad programme of action, should not be supported wholeheartedly and its carrying out expedited. On the contrary, those people who complained in the past that we were not quick enough in implementing our policy, should be the first now to come and help us, now that at last, in their view, we have taken the necessary step. Details may still be questioned, may still be criticized, preferably constructively criticized, but approval of detail is not what we are asking for now. It is the broad lines of the plan which I hope and in fact trust will command the widest possible support. Even in its embryonic form as outlined in the State President’s message, the Star has already agreed to “give it a go”. I want to quote just this one paragraph—

But, Sir, I plead for much more than passive acquiescence. I plead for active co-operation. I am not unmindful of the impact on world opinion which a united front on this matter would have, not an impact on biased or hostile minds but an impact on those well-disposed critics who wish to be fair, who wish to be honest. This is the type of thing that will have an impact on them. The opportunity is there, for both sides of the House and outside, an opportunity for real service to South Africa, to the Republic and to the Transkei. I can only say carpe diem, seize the day; do not let this opportunity slip past unheeded and unused.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance started off by criticizing my Leader’s motion and he said that it amounted to a conditional motion of no-confidence. I would remind him, however, that in wording this notice of motion we were guided by an example, the example of a motion which was moved here in 1948 by Dr. Malan, and I would not be at all surprised if this facile brain of the Minister of Finance’s did not have a hand in drafting the motion. It concluded in this way—

which is exactly what my Leader’s motion says. Unfortunately the Minister of Finance has forgotten what took place in 1948. The Prime Minister, of course, was not here so he does not know.

Sir, when the Minister of Finance takes part in a debate, one is entitled to believe that he will outline the financial implications and the economic implications of the matter being discussed, and I would point out to him that in this motion moved by my Leader we particularly asked in paragraph (d) for information regarding the financial, economic and international implications of the steps to be taken. The Minister of Finance did not mention it at all. The only time he dealt with figures was when he pointed out that the Bantu were in the majority numerically, and he did mention that by giving the Transkei independence, the Government would now be able to borrow money from an international body for development in that area. Why did he not tell us about the other financial implications? If any measures are to be introduced are they meant to be introduced this Session, or do we have to wait until next session for them? The Minister of Finance says that the Prime Minister has given us the information we want and therefore our vote of no-confidence falls away. I can assure the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that we want a lot more information this afternoon, and I hoped that the Minister of Finance would give that information. He quoted a speech made in this House by Mr. Oppenheimer when he was a member of this party in justification of the Government’s policy of giving separate representation to the different groups in their own areas, and he concluded by saying that if our policy was put into effect the difficulties or troubles that Mr. Oppenheimer foresaw would eventuate. But I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that it is particularly because of the reasons given by Mr. Oppenheimer that we have a policy of race federation, and this speech which he has quoted to-day has been quoted frequently by us against the Progressives, so the Minister did not come with anything surprising to us in the United Party.

He was a member of your party.

Exactly. We still hold that view to-day which he held then, and that is why we have the race federation policy. Does the hon. member not understand English?

Sir, what amazed me was the statement by the Minister of Finance that the broad plan of action enunciated by the Prime Minister yesterday had the support of the Cabinet. It is an amazing thing that a Cabinet Minister has to get up and tell the country that they support the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself said that this was a dramatic day; he was making a great announcement; great preparations had been made overseas to publish this statement in the Press there; special arrangements were made in Umtata; a wireless set and loudspeakers were provided by the S.A.B.C. The chiefs knew all about it but nobody else knew about it. Special arrangements were made to kill cattle and there were lorries with lime-juice and other cool-drinks. Admittedly there were not many people present but after this epoch-making speech of the Prime Minister’s, it is amazing that the Minister of Finance has to get up and assure us that the Cabinet gives its full approval and so in fact does the caucus. It is obvious why he did it. The Minister knows full well that what we have been saying is true, that the country did not expect this and that the country never believed the United Party when it said that was the policy of the Government He knows that the Nationalist supporters of the country are worried to-day, now that they are seeing that what we said is true, and it is in order to pacify them that he is giving the assurance now that all the Nationalist members of Parliament at any rate do support the Prime Minister. He then went on to tell us what the Prime Minister had said in 1959. Why did he not tell the country and remind us of what Dr. Malan said in this House in 1949, that total territorial separation was not the policy of the Nationalist Party. I am not worried about a letter which he wrote to the minister in Canada. I am talking about what he said in this House, which contradicted the present Prime Minister as to what the ultimate Bantu policy was to be for this country. The Minister of Finance dwelt at length on speeches made by the Prime Minister before in an endeavour to tell his followers outside (die volk daarbuite) that there has not been a change of policy. That is what he was endeavouring to do. He admits that what has happened is that there has been an accelerated rate, and he says that he hopes with his speech to erase the false image which apparently was accepted abroad. He was not satisfied with the speech of two hours and forty minutes made by the Prime Minister; he himself now tries to erase this false image, and he says that the policy of the Government is to gradually eliminate discrimination in South Africa. Does that apply to all non-White groups? Is the Government’s policy to abolish discrimination in the case of all non-White groups—political discrimination? Sir, I will deal with the Coloureds and Indians in a moment. This Minister also said that there had been an outflow of capital from this country, there had been fears abroad as to the future of this country because people overseas feared that the Whites would lose control and also that there would be uprisings in this country. Now, I ask the Minister of Finance why did he not tell us in what way the speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday is going to allay those fears; in what way is that speech of the Prime Minister’s going to remove the majority of the Black people in the White urban areas? Why did he not tell us that? The Minister of Finance stressed that we cannot withhold political rights from groups for all time. He said it not once but several times. Why did he not tell us when they are going to give the Indians political representatives in this House?

He was going to get rid of them all in six months.

Sir, the Minister says that we must not have economic colonialism in the Reserves; that economic colonialism is a bad thing. I would say, Sir, that South Africa has not done too badly out of economic colonialism. Who built us up? And we still want finance from overseas; we still want the foreign investor to establish his industries in this country. We are not driving him away; we are not afraid of economic colonialism.

The State President in his opening speech said—

Now, what is the solution? In the case of the Coloureds, they are to have their own Parliament and the Prime Minister yesterday assured us that the Coloureds would not lose their representatives in this House. I am going to quote what he said yesterday: he said—

That refers to the representation in this House.—

Now, Sir, I would like to read what the Prime Minister said in this House on 11 April of last year, not a year ago, in talking about the representatives of the Coloureds in this House and he was amazed that I should even question him on this point yesterday. He said—

That was in regard to the Coloured Council—

Sir. how can the Prime Minister say that he never even thought of it. Again we get a change of policy.

And that was only a year ago.

Wait for his speech next year!

Well, he won’t be the Prime Minister then; he will be in the Opposition benches. Sir, I want to know what is going to happen to the Indians or Asiatics. We asked the Prime Minister that. Why did the Minister of Finance not give us that information? He said that all the information would be given. What is going to happen to them? We understand that they are going to have their own department now and that the Prime Minister will then consult with this Council which will be established and that they will then presumably get certain political rights. They must get political rights, according to the Minister of Finance. Why did the Prime Minister not tell us yesterday whether they are going to get representation in the House of Assembly? The Coloureds are going to keep their representation here. Are the Indians going to be given representation in this House as well? The Prime Minister should tell us, we want to know. Sir, there are going to be no Colouredstans or Indianstans or Asianstans, so they will not be able to develop separately like the Bantu. They will not be able to have their own Parliament in their own area and be able to exercise their political rights there, and we now demand that the Prime Minister should tell us or that any of his Ministers should tell us what the policy is to be. It is clear from the President’s speech that each group will have a form of self-government and this must be based, said the President, on true democracy. Now, the Coloureds and the Asiatics, as I said, will never become independent, they will never be independent of the republican government, and although they are to be taught true democracy in terms of the President’s speech and encouraged to accept that form of government, will they enjoy the true rights of democracy in this Assembly? The hon. the Prime Minister has a big problem.

And you are doing your best to help him, are you?

I am doing my best to get some information as to what is in store for us for the future. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has this problem, as he has made clear in the past, that these other groups will not have political rights in this Parliament, and now he is forced to run away from that policy. In regard to the Coloureds he has now changed his mind. He now says that they will continue to have representatives in this House.

For how long?

“Vir ewig,” he said.

He never said that.

As far as the Prime Minister is concerned he has no thought of removing them. The hon. the Prime Minister has been forced into making the statement he made yesterday because of the difficulties he is having with the outside world, and in this country with regard to political rights, and he is now beginning to recognize the fact that he cannot deprive groups of people of political rights. Last year the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development introduced a Bill, which was passed, giving the urban Bantu some form of election for an urban council. That was a departure from the policy of this Government. It was always their policy that they would have no such right. We know that when the Bantu Authorities Act was passed no provision was made for a general system of election, but provision was made for a small measure of election in the Transkei. It was, however, a right of election only in respect of the lowest council and it does not amount to much.

Now the hon. the Prime Minister has told us that he is going to give the Transkei self-government. He expects to introduce a Bill next year. He cannot do so now, because he must first consult the Territorial Authority. Who is he going to consult? The council last year appointed a recess committee to work out the manner in which they could obtain self-government. At the last sitting of the Bantu Authority a motion was introduced asking for self-government and independence, and after a lengthy debate it was decided to refer the matter to a recess committee, but the motion in its original form was not referred to the recess committee, because when it was pointed out to them that if the Transkei were to become an independent democratic state, the chiefs and headmen would lose their positions, a proviso was added that they should try to find a method to attain independence at the same time retaining the traditional role of the chiefs and headmen. Now the chiefs and headmen are going to be consulted. What about the other people who are going to be affected? And what is going to become of all the Bantu living in the White areas who ultimately are going to lose their South African citizenship? The hon. the Prime Minister has told us that they will enjoy their own citizenship in the Transkei, but that for a while they will also have the advantage of South African citizenship. But the majority of Bantu do not live in the reserves but outside the reserves. They are not consulted and they will lose their right of citizenship. This can be likened to the Government allowing Natal to secede, at the request of a few, and then depriving all citizens of Natal descent, wherever they may be residing, of their South African citizenship, without giving them any choice at all as to which citizenship they would prefer to enjoy.

Fundamentally there is nothing wrong in giving the Bantu more authority to control their own affairs. That is in fact United Party policy to let them develop gradually and to give them more and more control over their own affairs, until the Transkei for instance gain the status of a provincial council. That is our stated policy. So I say that fundamentally there is nothing wrong in giving them more authority. But what is wrong is that this policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, this freedom which he is now giving them, the independence which he has promised for the future, solves no problem at all and will create hardship. I repeat that it does not solve any problem. It is also wrong because the majority of the people affected are not consulted at all.

Why has the hon. the Prime Minister taken this course? It is not necessary at the moment for him to pass a bill to give the Transkei a form of self-government. If the object is only to give them additional rights, he can do it by amending the Territorial Authority Proclamation. He can do it under the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act. There is provision there for the Minister to give these authorities more and more power. Why was it necessary for the hon. the Prime Minister to make this dramatic statement and to say that he is going to introduce a new bill and to give a completely new constitution to the Transkei. I say, Sir, that it is because in the first place he wishes to placate world opinion, and secondly because he wants to wash his hands of Bantu Administration in the Transkei. He knows that the Bantu Authorities as applied in the Transkei have failed. He knows that the authorities are unpopular. He had trouble in Pondoland last year. He appointed a commission of inquiry, the Van Heerden Commission. What did that commission find? It found that the Bantu Authorities were unpopular, that there was opposition to the Bantu Authorities.

That is not so. You did not read the report.

That is so. Read the commission’s report again. I am surprised that a member of the Native Affairs Commission does not know that because of that report a committee was appointed to go into the question as to how to make the authorities more popular. That is why the committee was appointed.

To see what could be done to combat communistic influences.

Sir, the committee was appointed to go into the working of the Bantu Authorities and to try and make them more popular with the people.

Now they want to give the communists self-government!

Sir, the principle of Bantu Authorities under the Bantu Authorities Act was to deny the ordinary tribesmen any right of election. We proposed the Bantu Authorities Act because we felt it was not right. The policy of the Minister at the time, the present Prime Minister, was to restore tribal discipline. The Prime Minister, then Minister of Native Affairs, said that was true Bantu democracy—to place the power in the hands of the chiefs and headmen who would form their own councils. We opposed that. The Government has now realized that we were right, because the hon. the Prime Minister said that in the new constitution provision would be made to give the tribesmen political rights, the right of election. That is why he wants to do away with the present proclamation. The Government has now accepted the policy that the ordinary tribesman must be given some political rights. That is true democracy. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration was not here just now when I reminded the House that last year he introduced a Bill to give the urban Native some electoral rights. I suppose next year we will get legislation here giving group representation to all the various groups. Sir, the promise of political rights to the Bantu in the Transkei and the other reserves is not going to solve the problems of the reserves. What those people in the reserves want is employment. There is no work for them. They cannot get out. The Minister will know that the Natives in the Transkei do their utmost to get out and find work. They can go to the mines, but every Native does not want to go underground and be a miner. Outside of that it is very difficult for them to get employment. They are pestering the magistrates for permits to leave the Transkei to seek work, because they are starving. They have got to get work. The land cannot possibly maintain all the people living there, and the Minister of Bantu Administration will agree with me. That is why the Government itself has established recruiting agencies to try and get work for the Bantu outside. They want education, and they want the right to choose the medium of their education. They want good administration and justice without fear or favour. That desire also appears in the Van Heerden Commission’s Report, I may say for the benefit of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). Sir, they want industrialization on a big scale within the reserves, not outside the reserves. This Government has been in power for 13 years, and what has it done to develop the reserves? It has established a furniture factory outside Umtata, but what employment does that give? They have encouraged the planting of sisal, but what employment does that give? The Tomlinson Commission in 1954, planned extensive development over the next ten years and they pleaded that £10,000,000 at least should be made available each year, £100,000,000 over the ten years. Eight years have passed since that commission reported to the Government, and the present Minister of Bantu Administration was a member of that commission. He was aware of the urgency of the problem. The commission said that the matter was urgent, that there should be no delay in the carrying out of their recommendations. Eight years have passed and I ask the hon. Minister to tell us what has been done. Now independence is going to be given, and the cry for independence may be a popular one, but I ask the hon. the Minister or anybody here to name me any state in Africa where the indigenous population has improved its lot by being given independence. No, this Government has not fulfilled its duty, it has not brought about the development in those territories; developments which should have taken place. If it is the policy to get the Bantu in the urban areas back into the reserves, I want to ask the hon. the Minister how that is going to be effected if the Transkei is now handed over to the Bantu themselves? This Government itself has done nothing in ten years time for the development of that territory. Australia and Canada are huge countries where big developments have taken place since the last war. In 13 years they did well by each taking in a million immigrants. Can the Transkei take immigrants from the so-called White areas? How many can they take each year? The hon. the Prime Minister has said that the Natives will continue to come in increasing numbers to the White areas until the year 1978. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has mentioned the year 1976. But then, they say, the flow will start backwards. What is going to happen to those people living in the European areas during the next 16 years before they start going back to the reserves—if they ever are going to go back? I don’t believe they can go back, because the necessary development is not taking place. What is going to happen to those people living in the urban areas? What political rights are they going to enjoy? Do you think they will be happy by living here in Cape Town and voting for something in the Transkei, the government of the Transkei, a part of the country which they perhaps have never seen?

Why did the British Government allow the Bantu from Basutoland living here to vote for the Basutoland Government?

They are presumed to go back to Basutoland. I am asking the hon. the Minister whether he realizes that if all the Bantu living outside the reserves are going to get the right to vote for the Government inside the reserve, then in view of the fact that the majority of the Bantu are living outside the reserves, the Bantu living outside the reserves are going to control the reserves. Does he appreciate that? If communistic influences are so strong here, then the people living here are going to elect communistic members of Parliament there. The urban Bantu are not interested in what is happening in the reserves. They are only interested in their political rights here. The Government is going to create difficulties for the reserves.

And what will happen under your federation?

Has there been any indication from the ordinary tribesmen in the reserves, let alone the Bantu outside the reserves—I am not talking about the redblanket Bantu now, but the educated man who is not a chief or headman—has there been any indication from them that they want this? Who has been consulted? The self-government which the Transkeian Authorities want has, as I have said, the proviso that it must in no way tamper with the traditional position of the chiefs. Have any others been consulted?

I should like to know what is going to happen to citizens of the Republic living in the Transkei, that is to say the Europeans and Coloured. How will they be governed? What contact will our Government have with them? With the trader, who will be surrounded by land belonging to a foreign government, by land controlled by a foreign government? What will be the position of the subjects of the Republic living in those areas? I want to ask this—I asked it last year: What compensation is going to be given to the White people living in that area. Sir, the White people cannot be sacrificed to save the White people in the rest of the country. What was the criticism of the Nationalists and their press about the British Government’s attitude towards the Whites in Kenya? They said they were expendable in the eyes of the British Government. Are we Whites in the Transkei expendable? We are subjects of the Republic. We have settled there in our own country. I want to ask the Minister again what is going to happen to us. What is going to happen for instance to investors such as the Anglo-American which is developing a mine at Insizira? They have got a big team of experts there now working in their mine. What is going to be their position? I understood from the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday that White people are not going to be allowed to invest money in the territory for gain. And what about Port St. John’s? The Government has sent experts to Port St. Johns to investigate the possibilities of developing the port. What is going to happen to White concerns which invest money in that area? How are they to be encouraged?

Sir, I think the hon. the Prime Minister has made a fatal blunder in not deciding on the boundaries of the reserves before agreeing to give them self-government. Unless this question is settled now before they get self-government, it is going to be a continuous bone of contention. I want to know what is going to happen to East Griqualand. The hon. the Prime Minister gave the assurance to the Mt. Curry farmers that area would remain White, the hon. the Minister of Native Administration gave the same assurance to Matatiele, and he also gave the assurance to the farmers of Maclear, just outside the Transkei. I want to know what is going to happen to these people. Do these assurances still stand? Will they continue to remain outside the reserves. When the United Party, during the election, produced our Bantustan map, great exception was taken by the Nationalists and it was said that it was not a true map. That was the map which we thought the Government wished to draw, but we now realize that it was not a true map, because it now appears that the map in its final form will not be as this Government wants to draw it but will be the map which the Natives approve of. The hon. the Prime Minister says that we should not worry about the threat of Communism in the reserves—the threat that the Communists may get a foothold there. He says that we are in no different position from Great Britain. Britain is giving freedom to her colonies, notwithstanding the threat that the Communists might take over there. But I must remind the hon. the Prime Minister that Great Britain, as Mr. Churchill said, has a very good anti-tank trap. Great Britain does not lie alongside the territories which are obtaining their freedom, but is far away and is isolated from such communist threats. The hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday—

He went on to say that the Bantu had been established in that area and that it therefore was only right to give it to them as their own group area. I would like to remind the House that the Bantu was not there in the Transkei only. The Bantu went right down to the Gamtoos River. They were driven back from the Gamtoos River and that is why the 1820 Settlers were brought out and settled there. I would like to remind hon. members too that the Bantu were all over the Free State and the Transvaal. They were at Pietersburg, they were at Zeerust, they were at Tha Bantshu.

Only raiders.

Are we eventually going to have separate Bantustans stretching right down to the Gamtoos River? Is that the principle on which the division must take place? Hon. members know where the line is where the Bantu allege their country started, where they were when they met the Europeans. And are we going to negotiate with them after we have handed over? Last year I said that we were going to have Bantustans stretching from Mozambique down to the Fish River. After the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister I now fear that it will be right down to the Gamtoos River. Why is it that the hon. the Prime Minister will not now settle the boundaries with those areas? Why is he afraid to settle the boundaries now? Why does he wait? Sir, this proposed plan of the hon. the Prime Minister is no solution for our problems at all. Give the Natives all the rights you like in the reserves, you are still saddled with the same problem: Natives are living permanently in our urban areas. We are still going to have the same problems after we have given independence to the Transkei because we cannot get rid of the detribalized urban Native. They must get political rights. This plan of the hon. the Prime Minister is the last ditch stand of chauvinism, of the Verwoerd form of Nationalism, but it will not avail us.

During all the years that I have been a member of this House, I have never seen the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) struggling so much to make a speech as he did to-day, and at the outset, on behalf of this side of the House, I wish to express our sympathy towards him and other hon. members on that side of the House for the midnight oil they had to burn last night in order to re-write their speeches after the Prime Minister had made his speech yesterday. It is quite clear that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories had to speak without the notes he had drafted and that accounts for the fact that the House had to listen to all the nonsense that he spoke. I am sorry that I cannot deal with everything he said this afternoon, although I want to deal with some of it. The hon. member raved and said that the Bantu in the White areas were being completely overlooked, that justice was not being done to them, that they were not even being consulted, and that in the concept which the hon. the Prime Minister announced yesterday they were not receiving their due. The Prime Minister himself, however, replied to this latter point yesterday. He pointed out very clearly, and he emphasized it, that in the system of representation, in the Bantu Parliament, the Xhosa Parliament, those Xhosa who lived in the urban areas, in all the White areas, would also have a voice because they would be able to exercise the vote. The hon the Prime Minister said very clearly that there would be a political link and connection between the Bantu in the White areas and that Bantu Parliament in the Bantu homeland. He could not have stated that more clearly. The hon. member will eventually get the further details once mutual consultation in this respect has taken place.

What nonsense!

First make your maiden speech.

Never mind, I know the hon. member. It is more a case of good intentions than ignorance as far as he is concerned.

Neither is it true what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories said namely that to-day the Bantu in the White areas have no contact with their Bantu areas and that consequently they will not be consulted when this consultation takes place. At the present moment the Bantu in the White areas have links with the Bantu in the Bantu homelands. The hon. member ought to know that under existing legislation the Bantu in their homelands nominate their representatives in the Bantu residential areas in the cities.

Where have they been appointed?

The hon. member must know that, but he pretends that he does not. To-day the Bantu in the White areas have links with the Bantu in the Bantu homelands by means of the representatives who are nominated here and consequently if negotiations are conducted about this further step there will be contact with the Bantu in the White areas. That is not consultation without contact. But while we are on this subject, if the hon. member adopts such a mocking attitude towards the way in which the Bantu who work in the White areas have political contact with their homelands, I should like to ask him to tell us something more about the system which the British Government has introduced in the protectorates, namely for Basutoland. Does the hon. member know, or does he pretend that he does not, that last year the Basutos from Basutoland here in the White cities of the Republic of South Africa voted for their authority that had to be elected in Basutoland? Does the hon. member know that? That is fine! At that time it was held out as something wonderful, and I agree that it was wonderful and fine. But why, if it is wonderful and fine in the case of Basutoland, can it not be equally wonderful when done in our country?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also said other things to which I want to refer briefly. The hon. member said that by means of this legislation—and he said that since last year already the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration were showing signs that this was the case—the system of Bantu authorities was being abandoned. He said they were washing their hands of it and that they were abandoning it. Mr. Speaker, nothing is further from the truth than that statement. That was a ridiculous allegation by the hon. member.

He was probably only joking.

Yes, my hon. Minister is so charitable that he thinks it was simply a joke. If he were serious, I want to remind him of this that less than two months ago, six weeks ago, the hon. the Minister established the territorial authority for the Tswana at Mafeking. Would he have done that had we abandoned the system?

What are they going to do?

The Tswanas are going to do with that system what the Xhosas did with their system, and they will continue to develop it, probably on the same pattern with adaptations that suit them, until a Tswana Parliament is established, just as there will be a Parliament in Xhosalana. We shall continue to build on this pattern and in a moment I shall return to this process of evolutionary development. I do, however, want to point out to the hon. member that he is very far from right when he says that we have abandoned this system of Bantu authorities.

Are you continuing with it?

I merely want to say to the hon. member that he will soon learn of other territorial authorities that have been established, the highest form of authority that is possible under existing legislation. All those are steps forward in this evolutionary process.

What will be the next one?

That is not relevant at the moment. If the hon. member attaches no value to the fact that in the past we have extended the authorities and that we will extend them in future, he should have listened last night to what a Bantu leader like Kaizer Matanzima said about this step which was being taken in the Transkei. He said it was due to the very system of Bantu authorities which was introduced under the regime of this party. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr. Speaker, as soon as we have statements from Bantu which do not suit them, those Bantu are disparaged. Then they are called “stooges” and all sorts of unbecoming things are attributed to them. The hon. member also referred to the element of election that will be introduced into the Bantu Parliament, and he insinuated that this system of election which is to be introduced, meant that we had abandoned and discarded the traditional system of government by chiefs. The hon. member ought to know that the Bantu himself is one of the safest guarantees that will never happen. The hon. member himself referred to that and he wanted to create the impression that was a manipulation added as an after-thought. That was a fundamental requirement by the Bantu in the Transkei when they appointed their commission earlier this year. They laid down the proviso that the system of chiefs should not be undermined. The Bantu himself will insist on that and I want to assure the hon. member that the Government is very sincere in its intentions that the system of chiefs in its essence should not be undermined. The hon. member can accept that as a fact and he will also notice that in the scheme that will develop, and in the consultations between the Bantu and the Government that subject will be discussed and there will be competition as to who attaches greater value to it. There will be absolute unanimity in that respect. If the hon. member thinks that the Government will undermine the system of chiefs, and that the Bantu will put up a fight in that regard, he is very far off the mark. The whole idea is that the traditional system of government of the Bantu should not be undermined and destroyed.

The hon. member also referred to the Tomlinson report and the economical development which the commission asked for in its recommendations. He wanted to know what had happened to that. He tried to take a dig at the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration who was a member of that Commission and he asked him what he had done. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member—I am not even talking about the previous Minister of Native Affairs—should know that during the past years the Minister of Bantu Administration started with what is known as a five year plan, a plan of economic development in the Bantu areas at an intensive and ever-increasing tempo. Is that not a reply to it?

They do not want it.

The hon. member is quite right; they want it and at the same time they do not want it. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories asked what was to happen to the poor White people who remained in the Bantu homelands? I know he is probably big-hearted enough not to think of himself when he asks that question. He wants to know what is to become of the Whites who remain behind in the Bantu homelands; what about compensation? Did he not hear what the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday when he spoke about the Whites that were necessary and that will be necessary, even if it is to be on a decreasing scale, in those Bantu areas? He said that a guarantee was being given to the officials.

They are not all officials.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must allow me to utter my words in the sequence of my own choice. I shall come in a moment within the power of comprehension of the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister issued a guarantee in respect of those people who were serving the Government, who were serving that area, and serving this project and conception. Does the hon. member think for one moment that an injustice will be done to the private citizens who perform a service there, even if they are not paid by the Government and that the Government will turn its back on them?

But they will be regarded as immigrants in the Transkei.

That hon. member rather makes me think that he is an immigrant in South Africa who has not yet adapted himself here. The White people in the Bantu homelands can depend on it that the Government will view their position with the greatest circumspection and that the best will be done for them, that measures and care will be taken to ensure that their interests, which will be ever decreasing, will be protected right to the end. The White man can take that from this Government. That has been proved over and over again in other parts of the country where there has been removal of national groups—whether under the Group Areas Act or any other legislation. That has already been proved and the Whites can also accept that. I think in the years to come the White people there will show that they have not allowed themselves to be scared by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories and his colleagues who will no doubt still sing this tune for a long time to come.

The same applies in the case of the borders. I do not want to say anything more about that. I think in principle the hon. the Prime Minister dealt sufficiently with that yesterday. The question of the borders is likewise an evolutionary one. The consolidation of areas continues and as states come into existence and as areas are developed, even though they are not independent states, areas which do not as yet have self-government or which have self-government in varying degrees, there will be mutual negotiation, as the hon. the Prime Minister explained yesterday. The hon. member ought to understand that quite clearly.

Mr. Speaker, this matter which we are discussing to-day and which flows from the exposition given by the Prime Minister yesterday, is something which affects the way of life of the White people and of the Bantu population of South Africa fundamentally. I am very pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister introduced this matter yesterday so historically by pointing out that the national groups in South Africa settled in those geographical areas where they are, on a voluntary basis. There were minor clashes between some of them. History teaches us that. But that came about mainly by way of voluntary settlement. This geographical separation is the basis of our whole conception of political development. Wherever national communities settle, even if they are still in a primitive state, we must expect the primaeval instinct in the individual and in human communities to make itself felt in the course of years. That primaeval instinct is self-realization, procreation of oneself. Obedience to that primaeval instinct, present in all human communities, is the main principle of our policy, and admission of the existence of that primaeval instinct is the principle which the United Party and all other integrationists on the other side overlook. The reason for this attitude is that all of them have set themselves as goal a policy of integration, to a greater or smaller extent, a policy of equalization, and the creation of new units—units other than those which they have become by destiny. In the face of the rapid developments which the world is seeing at present and which we are also experiencing in these matters, it follows as a matter of course that we should revise our methods of thinking and should in many respects think faster. Hon. members may find it very difficult, especially the hon. member for Green Point, for example—who only a moment ago was not able to understand me—to develop their thoughts so rapidly and to rid their minds of old, set ideas. But hon. members on the other side and the public in general know that in these times of rapid development we must also think out these things more rapidly and tackle them at a faster rate. But if we have to think faster it still does not mean that we should discard and renounce everything belonging to the past. Particularly in respect of the matters which we are now discussing—self-government for the Bantu—we can derive a great measure of useful precept from our history. For throughout the years, from the earliest days of our settlement, there has always been a clear idea of separation between Whites and Bantu and between Whites and other non-White groups. This separation is geographic, social, educational and in other spheres. This idea of separation in South Africa, in our national communities and in our national life has become an inherent characteristic of our way of life. The measures which we are taking constitute a continuation of this. It is the evolutionary process to which I referred a moment ago. It is this process that is rounding itself off, although the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday shocked many people. If the announcement of self-government for the Bantu authorities in 1959, and that of 1951, and many other similar announcements, were new to many people, the sole reason for it was that those people, because of their rigidity of thought, did not expect these things. Mr. Speaker, the things that we heard yesterday are perhaps new in their application, but to people who are familiar with our national life they are old and traditional, for this is simply an evolutionary continuation of what happened long ago. It may be new to the outsider for he does not know better. But to us in South Africa it should not be new, and I make bold to say that even a man like the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), who to-day acted very irresponsibly in this House, knows that these measures are traditional. They are traditional and true to the evolutionary process of separation which must round itself off in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, our policy of separate development is based on the evolutionary process of separation; it is not something botched up around a conference table. It is not a concoction. It is not an opportunistic concoction aimed at influencing people … [Laughter]. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member laughs because I use the word “konkoksie” (concoction). His policy of racial federation is a concoction. It is a concoction par excellence, and do you know who has typified it best? His esteemed leader. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said on one occasion during the last election campaign that the policy of racial federation contained the best elements from all the other policies of the country.

You did not understand.

It is a stew.

Yes, his was a stew, as the hon. member says. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also defined it more precisely. He even said that the policy of racial federation contained the best elements from the policy of separate homelands for the Bantu.

Quite correct.

I assume that it also contains the best elements from the policy of the Progressive Party.

No, it would be too weak.

The policy may be bad, but it nevertheless contained elements which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considered good enough to incorporate, for he did incorporate them. [Interjections]. In the same way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also took what he considered to be the best of the policies of other political parties and in that way he drew up what I call a concoction of racial federation. [Interjections]. Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to discuss this concoction, but I am in a more exalted mood to-day, and I do not therefore wish to discuss this concoction of a racial federation, although one is sorely tempted to do so. The voluntary settlement of Whites in Bantu communities in various parts of the country constitutes, as I have said, the basis of our separate development. It is in this way that the Bantu homelands in South Africa, which have come about naturally, were created. In some parts of the country not all of them have been joined, and in this respect there must be adjustment and improvement. The White homelands which have come about naturally were created in the same way. I should like to teach hon. members on the other side another term. We so often speak about Bantu homelands; I have also heard hon. members on the other side speak of Bantu homelands. But there is one thought which hon. members must please engrave deeply in their minds and that thought is that in South Africa there is also such a thing as a White homeland.

They have already sold it.

Mr. Speaker, how has this concept of Bantu homelands and of White homelands been built up in the course of the years by means of legislative and administrative measures in this process which I have referred to as an evolutionary one? It has been built up in the way in which we are now going to continue with this step which is to come. I want to remind hon. members that both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, White and non-White, the various authorities we had in this country, in the days of the Voortrekkers, in the Colonial days, in the days of the Crown Colony, in the old Republican days, in the days of Union, and now also in the days of the Republic—all of these governments, some admittedly in varying degrees and some to a lesser extent than others, accepted the basic establishment of a White homeland and Bantu homelands, but they all accepted it. They all accepted it by way of legislation, by way of regulations, by way of administrative measures in every respect, some more reluctantly than others—that I do admit—but all of them accepted this fact. I do not want to quote many examples, but I nevertheless wish to mention a few from the days of the predecessors of the present Opposition. The only fundamental change in this respect is that whereas the United Party of yore also accepted this idea and this reality of Bantu homelands and of a White homeland, the United Party of to-day has renounced it.

Does your plan not recognize that there will be more non-Whites than Whites in the so-called White areas?

The hon. member is still fencing with ghosts. The hon. the Prime Minister replied to that question yesterday. Hon. members on the other side ought to know that there will be Bantu in the White areas in the numbers for whom work will be available, and that the return to the Bantu areas will be a slow process which will take years.

There are some who have been here for three or four generations.

The hon. member need not concern himself about that. He does not understand. I say that the present United Party has rejected the old United Party. They have renounced the policy of the old United Party. They no longer want to accept it, but to-day they talk of a racial federation by which one is given to understand, with the few details available about it, in spite of the very lengthy article by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) which appeared in the Sunday Times … [Interjections.] The term “race federation” must be understood to mean a Bantu area in the Bantu homelands, which they say has a geographic connotation. From that we must infer that they will grant self-government to the Bantu in the Bantu areas. In other words, there will be a Bantu homeland, governed by Bantu exclusively, solely by Bantu, but I want to emphasize the fact that in terms of their policy they will allow White penetration into the Bantu homelands. They will allow Whites to infiltrate and encourage them to infiltrate, and in due course friction will arise. Secondly, will there be a mixed area in South Africa in which, according to them, the Whites and the Bantu—the large number to whom the hon. member for Green Point referred just now—the Coloureds, the Indians and all who are in South Africa will, mixed and jointly, elect members to the federal parliament. In other words, they cannot deny that it is abundantly clear that the United Party of to-day, with its racial federation, has completely rejected the old idea, that of separate areas, of the United Party, an idea which was accepted by the old United Party and implemented by it, and which was also advocated by General Smuts. Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote some striking examples from the Union period, for example. In 1913 legislation was introduced into this House by none other than the then Prime Minister and leader of the old South African Party, the late General Botha. He introduced that legislation to ensure the Bantu of possession of those areas which they had voluntarily chosen as their homelands. This possession was to be for all time and inalienable. At the time these measures were supported by General Hertzog, who had already been kicked out. Admittedly he had not yet become the leader of the National Party, for the National Party was not formally constituted till one year later. But it was subscribed to by General Hertzog, and in this connection I just want to read to you the words spoken by these two illustrious leaders of that time. Let me first, read out what the late General Hertzog said. It is recorded in Hansard. In connection with this legislation General Hertzog uttered these very significant words; and if we were to quote them to anybody who does not know about General Hertzog and who listened to the speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday and ask him by whom they were spoken, his reply would be that the statement was made by Dr. Verwoerd. Listen—

Under supervision.

That is what is happening. Wait a moment; do not speak too soon. I have not completed the quotation—

One more quotation from the speech by General Hertzog—

“Now” refers to 1913—

[Interjections.] The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) must be very careful in this debate. He is talking too soon. General Hertzog said that we would have to take measures. What attitude were we to adopt, and what was he prepared to do in 1913? In the third quotation which I want to read from his speech—something which he said a number of years later—he stated—

I just want to say that when General Hertzog spoke these words he was no longer a lone wolf in this Parliament. He was then Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa and he uttered these words with a great sense of responsibility—

That is what General Hertzog said, and I now come to what the late General Botha said. I hope that the hon. member for North-East Rand would also like to hear this. General Botha said this when he carried the great responsibility as Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, in the year 1913, when he also dealt with the legislation of 1913 in his capacity as Minister of Native Affairs. He said—

In other words, there should be some ethnic grouping—

Dead silence! This was said, and for the sake of clarity I repeat it, by General Botha in 1913. If I had enough time I could disillusion hon. members on the other side still further by reading to them what General Smuts said. His statement followed the same trend, and at the time his party accepted it. I do not want to quote it now, but in passing I want to mention that statement was made as recently as shortly prior to 1948. You can read what General Smuts then said on this issue when he was called upon to give an account of our domestic affairs to the United Nations. Even at that time General Smuts said things which agree with our idea of separate development. I mention this to emphasize that people of all language and colour groups in South Africa accept this process of separation. Only the United Party of to-day has rejected it. Think of the impressive legislative programme of 1936, introduced by General Hertzog and General Smuts jointly, and supported by the National Party of the day, no matter how small it was. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) was later called upon, as Minister of Native Affairs, to implement the policy, but he violated it. Both parties of 1936, General Smuts and General Hertzog, and our party as well, were in agreement on the issue, but three years later General Smuts, one partner to the introduction of the measure, became the sole ruler of the United Party and he and his then Minister of Native Affairs, the hon. member for Green Point, immediately began violating that very gentleman’s agreement of 1936 which accepted that there must be White homelands for the Whites, and also homelands for the Bantu. That was the end of the story. After this date several varying policies were put forward. After 1948 there followed our measures of 1951, which were opposed by the United Party; those were followed by our measures of 1959, which were also opposed by the United Party; and now we have our present measures, which are also opposed by the United Party. We shall have to resign ourselves to the fact that we shall be opposed by the Opposition in this House till the turn of the century.

By way of interjection reference has been made to the fact that we are to-day finding that the Opposition is not only repudiating these separate homelands for Whites and Bantu, but that individual members are acting in a most irresponsible and rash manner, members like the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), who a few years back started to split with the Progressives on the issue of land purchases, and the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) who raised such a hullabaloo in the Eastern Cape a week or two ago on the question of land purchases. Not a single inch was to be bought, they said.

That is untrue. I did not say that, and you know that it is not true.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it.

Do you want to see the newspaper report? Since hon. members on the other side are now causing such excitement throughout the country with their opposition to the purchase of land, to the consolidation of Bantu areas, I want to ask them, and I put the question to the hon. member for the Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), whether they are also going to start inciting the Whites who are in those towns, the ones called “White spot towns”, by telling them to refuse to sell to the Bantu, so that the Bantu in due course will not be able gradually to take over those towns and live there. [Time limit.]

In passing I just want to refer, as is customary, to some of the things said here by the hon. the Deputy Minister. In the first place, he quoted what the late Generals Hertzog and Botha are supposed to have said about the Bantu homelands. I am aware of those speeches by those two leaders of our people. Their standpoint—and I say it with all respect—completely coincides with the standpoint adopted to-day by this side of the House. In regard to those homelands of which Generals Hertzog and Botha spoke, that was never the idea; the idea never occurred to them that those homelands would be separated from the rest of the Union. They were more specifically to be intended as homelands where our Bantu population would live and where the Whites would see to it that they enjoyed the necessary protection. Quite correct, but never in our history since 1910 has it been the policy of any party that those Bantu homelands would not be and remain a part of the rest of the Union of South Africa.

But I want to go further. The hon. member refers to 1936 and says that side of the House was also in favour of extending the area of the Bantu homelands and that the White man would have to see to it. I happen to have here a few extracts from the speeches made at that time referring to a further discussion of that matter in 1939. I quote from Hansard of that year, 1939, Col. 1133, from what Mr. Strijdom, who was later Prime Minister of this country, said—

Understand clearly: If the Natives have the funds! Then he continues further in Col. 1133—

That was the policy of the National Party, but let me continue.

At that stage. That was 22 years ago.

That was one of the Deputy Minister’s points of argument. That was the basis of his whole attack on this side, but if I now refer to it hon. members say it was 22 years ago! My hon. friend the Minister of Social Welfare is also sitting here. In 1939, in Col. 1148, he said—

May I put a question?

I first want to make my point. Then Mr. Serfontein refers to a reply he sought from the Minister of Native Affairs at Marico, and that the Minister’s reply briefly was: “That we must spend millions to put the Natives into the areas, and he admitted that in consequence of that the scarcity of Native labour on the farms would further increase, but his explanation was that if the thousands of Natives were put into reserves there would in course of time be the young Natives who would come out of the reserves to assist the farmers. In other words, the heart of South Africa had to be given to the Natives to breed young Natives who would work for the farmers later on.” I hope I am not embarrassing the present Minister? Then an hon. member asked: “Why did you vote for the Act in 1936?”, and this was his reply—

In other words, he is telling an untruth—

In other words, the basis of the argument of the previous speaker was totally wrong and his proposition and his argument fall away.

When can I put my question?

I will reply to that question when it suits me. What I want to refer to, because we are dealing here with a very serious matter, is this. My hon. friends also said that the statement by the Prime Minister yesterday came as a shock to us. I do not think it shocked us. I think what shocked us was that eventually we got the National Party so far as publicly to admit this shocking policy. And what is more shocking is that hitherto they did not have the courage to put it to the public before the election. They were too scared.

Look out, we may hold another election just now!

Ever since 1948, when they came into power, they were divided on this matter of apartheid. We pointed out time and again that they were divided, and time and again it was denied, and evasive replies were given. Time and again vague and evasive replies were given when we put questions to them in regard to this matter. I wonder how many times I raised this matter in the House and asked them: Tell us whether your real intention is to divide South Africa? Does total apartheid mean the division of South Africa?

We are of course aware of the Sauer Committee. We know that the Sauer Committee issued a report. We are aware that immediately after having submitted its report the late Dr. Malan said that he believed that total separate development ought to be the aim of South Africa. Inter alia, he said the following—

Perfectly clear, and everybody thought that we could proceed either to defend or to attack this principle of total apartheid, but immediately thereafter, when the Church and Sabra also expressed themselves as being in favour of total territorial apartheid, the practical Dr. Malan, who always kept practical politics in mind, realized that this was a direction which would not be advantageous to his party and which would also be dangerous for the future of the White man in South Africa; and therefore he changed his whole policy and said the following in 1950. He said that they had clearly stated from political platforms that total territorial apartheid was impracticable in view of the fact that our whole economic structure was largely based on Native labour. He said—

In the meantime the present Prime Minister became the Minister of Native Affairs, and since then he has been busy announcing his specific pattern of apartheid.

May I put my question now?

I shall be glad if the hon. member will give me a chance. I do not want to reply to his question because I know it will be a stupid one.

Order!

Both the Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, and the then Minister of Lands, Mr. Strijdom, were clearly in conflict with the standpoint and the pattern propagated by the then Minister of Native Affairs, the present Prime Minister. Also, Mr. Strijdom repeatedly said that he was not in favour of total territorial apartheid. He said in this House in 1953—

So strongly did Mr. Strijdom feel about this matter that he said to me at the time—

In other words, he repeatedly stated, also in this House, that he believed in the “baasskap” of the White man; he believed in the perpetual guardianship or, as he stated, the “baasskap” of the White man, whatever happened, but that is not the present policy of this Government and of this Prime Minister. Total apartheid was not the policy of the hon. the Minister of Transport either. He did not believe in total apartheid either.

But your recollection is quite wrong.

But I am convinced of one thing, that my hon. friend until recently did not believe in total territorial apartheid. He said that quite a few times. But I am talking now more specifically about the former Prime Minister. Mr. Strijdom even went so far as to talk about a common fatherland. And now we hear the criticism from the hon. the Prime Minister that we on this side also stand for this dangerous and abominable thing, a common fatherland!

What we object to is that the people of South Africa, the electorate, have been misled for 14 years, until this Prime Minister came into power, and then he was able to implement what he had already told the Natives in 1950—

And that was repeatedly contradicted by hon. members opposite. Only after my hon. friend became Prime Minister was there a change of front on that side of the House. How many times did hon. members opposite not tell me, when I said that they stood for total territorial apartheid, that was not their policy; that they stood for perpetual guardianship over those areas, the homelands of the Natives, was their reply. Do they still stand for that? Is it still the policy of that side of the House that these areas such as Pondoland or the Transkei will perpetually be under the guardianship of the Whites? I see the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is in his seat. I want to ask him also whether they will receive independence. Will they become completely independent, as is now being said not for the first time by this side of the House, but as has been stated for the past 10 or 12 years? [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Native Affairs, repeatedly said that self-government did not mean independence, and we on this side of the House repeatedly told him that when once a country receives self-government the eventual logical consequence of it is independence, and that was denied by that side of the House. But then I must at the same time admit that the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday admitted that those states are to be independent, as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education admitted a year or two ago when he said we could not stop them from eventually becoming completely independent, and he knows in what difficulty he found himself in his party as a result of that. [Interjections.] Now, after so many years, and after the election which was held last year, the Prime Minister tells us that those Bantu states will now not only receive self-government, but also their independence in the near future. Then they will be able to do what they like in their areas, and they will be supreme in their areas, and will be the masters in their own areas. Those are the words he used. In other words, at last, after so many years, we now find the National Party admitting to what this side of the House has accused it of for 13 years, that it wants to split up South Africa; that it wants to give away the heritage of our fathers; that its intention is to divide South Africa; that the blood which South Africans shed in defence of their fatherland … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), who lives in the Eastern Province, knows as well as I do what the farmers on the border have sacrificed. That area is being given away to-day. Why did they sacrifice their lives and their blood? To establish independent states within the borders of South Africa?

To keep this country White.

The hon. member says it was to keep the country White, but the hon. the Prime Minister admits that there will be more Bantu outside the reserves, in the White areas, than in the Bantu states. No, this is the most dangerous and the most un-South African policy which has ever been propounded in this country. A few years ago I issued a warning and said that this course followed by the Government would lead to the same consequences as those of the Glenelg system in South Africa. The hon. member opposite me knows what I mean when I refer to the Glenelg system. The Glenelg system introduced the same principle of independence and he knows what the consequences of it were, that within 10 years 110 White people were murdered and that there was chaos in the Transkei, and the same thing will happen now if my hon. friends do not take care. The hon. the Prime Minister says that we will give satisfaction if we give the racial groups their independence, if we give them their freedom. Does the hon. the Prime Minister then not realize that he does not have one ethnic or homogeneous group within that area? Does he not realize that he has Pondos, Fingoes, Tembus, Southern Sothos, Xhosas and many other tribes there? And the same will happen if the White man withdraws himself from the control of those areas as happened under the Glenelg system. My hon. friends on this side of the House also say that one must give those people an opportunity to develop in the political and other spheres; give them an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves; give them also a say in their form of government, but never entirely divorce them completely from the control, the guardianship or leadership of the White people.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I have not the time. What causes me concern is not so much the fact that such states are to be established but that we are so prematurely trying to give those people a system of government for which they are not yet ripe. I say that with all respect. I know that the Bantu of the Transkei have for a century already gained experience in political matters under the control of the Whites, but the question which arises in my mind is whether they are ripe for it.

You must go to U.N.

I wish the hon. member would go to another place which is even warmer.

Order! What did the hon. member say there?

The hon. member said to me …

No, I want to know what the hon. member himself said.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it at once! The fact remains that the United Party also says that we must give the people in the reserves all possible facilities and all possible opportunities to develop to maturity, but always as an integral part of the Republic of South Africa. Therein lies the great difference between that and this side of the House. That side wants to give them complete independence. We say no, we also give them every opportunity in their own areas to develop, but they will always remain part of the Union of South Africa.

What about the franchise?

For that reason we feel that this policy of total territorial apartheid, of the granting of independence to these people, will lead to chaos and that it will be to the detriment not only of the Whites in South Africa, but also of the Bantu, because here we find that the Republic of South Africa, the White state, the guardian of the under-privileged, is now withdrawing, and what particularly struck me this afternoon is that the Prime Minister said that agriculture would also be handed over to them, the very matter in regard to which the guidance and the money of the White man is particularly required, and industry in regard to which the Bantu is still very backward. In respect of this very thing in regard to which the Bantu is most backward, we are to hand over control to him.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that we as White people in South Africa should allow South Africa to be split up and that we should hand over part of it to anybody. South Africa belongs to all of us, the Whites and the Bantu. It is for us to lead the Bantu, together with ourselves in a common South Africa, and to allow them to assist us to develop this common South Africa.

For how long?

How do I know that, and how does the hon. member know? But I am convinced that however dangerous the policy of the United Party might be, this policy of granting independence to seven Bantu states within the borders of South Africa can lead to nothing else but the doom of the Whites in South Africa. If I am told to-day that you will take away those 6,000,000 Bantu, or 12,000,000 to 15,000,000 Bantu, in 50 years’ time, and place them all in their own areas, I can understand that policy, but to come along with this impracticable suggestion that we will give the vote to those who are in the White areas in their own territory is, in my opinion, fatal for the future and cannot possibly work. For that reason we are glad that at last the Prime Minister had the courage to place his policy before us and that at last he has told the people of South Africa precisely what his Bantustan plan is, and that the National Party after 13 or 14 years has had the courage to say so. My only regret is that the Prime Minister did not say so earlier, that he did not say so before the election. However, he was too scared. He and his supporters were too scared to say so. Therefore we feel that we now know what to tell the people of South Africa; we know now that the voters can no longer be deluded, by an attempt on the part of hon. members opposite to escape from reality, as to the actual consequences which total apartheid holds in store for our country.

When the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) gets up to speak, he reminds me very much of a neighbour of mine. When he has done something very wrong and comes home late at night and expects that his wife will scold him, he immediately starts swearing and shouting outside and kicking every dog he encounters. Well, his speech was really like that. He actually just started scolding but did not say much. Right in the beginning his knowledge of history left him rather in the lurch. Just let me state the position clearly again. In 1913 we had legislation in terms of which certain Bantu areas were segregated, areas which are now called the demarcated areas. In 1936 again other areas were added to that, which we now call the released areas. Now he claims this afternoon that it is his party which did that, and I take it that he and his party still contend that these areas must remain Bantu areas and that those released areas should be purchased. I take it that is their policy because that is also what they say in their federation plan. That is why he quoted the speech of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare to prove that in 1936 the Minister was against it, when he was not a member of the United Party. He was then opposed to that legislation, but it now stands on the Statute Book, and I take it that they as a party still wish to abide by it. But who are now the people who to-day object to the purchase of that land? It is not the members on this side of the House. We realize that land has to be purchased in terms of the legislation which is on the Statute Book at present, and we want to implement what stands on the Statute Book. But who are the people who are now opposed to it? The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) recently presided at a meeting of the Border Farmers’ League in Stutterheim. I now quote from the report in the Daily Despatch—

And on the basis of what he said there, the resolution was then passed that no more land should be purchased. It is not only the hon. member for King William’s Town who is against these purchases, but also the people of Natal. I have here a lengthy report of a meeting held in Zululand, where the farmers of Zululand, who are all United Party supporters and who were in the majority there, decided that no more land should be purchased. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow gets up here to-day and intimates that we want to do something which was always their policy, and we are now supposed to be wrong. Then why are they not true to it?

I did not say that.

The hon. member made a long speech and said that they always said that self-government would mean independence, and that the Government party had always maintained that self-government did not amount to independence. Now, self-government is in fact not independence, but the National Party has consistently said that this road of self-development of the Bantu will result in independence. If the hon. member for Hillbrow had only taken the trouble to read the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in 1959, he would have seen that it was very explicitly and clearly stated by the Prime Minister that if self-development also had to lead to independence, then they would become independent. Therefore it is nothing new which the Prime Minister announced yesterday when he said that this self-development would lead to independence.

Mr. Speaker, in this debate we are called upon to discuss a motion by the Leader of the Opposition which, I want to suggest, was drafted when other circumstances in fact prevailed, because I believe that the announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday has destroyed the whole reason for the introduction of such a motion. In my opinion, that motion was really based on circumstances which have now become antiquated in our political set-up. I feel that this historical declaration of the Prime Minister has drastically changed the political situation in South Africa. I say “the political situation”, not “the policy” of the National Party, because all that is now happening here is that the policy of the National Party is being implemented. There is no change of policy, but I feel that the statement has created a new factual situation; that in fact we shall no longer be able to speak of a multi-racial state in South Africa; that we shall no longer be able to speak about integration in South Africa as a possible alternative policy to the policy of apartheid; that in future we shall have to deal with a multiplicity of states in South Africa, not a multiplicity of races in South Africa but a multiplicity of states, and that this is now a completely different political situation which we will have to bear in mind. I naturally feel sorry for the United Party, because the United Party over the last two decades has continually sought a colour policy in South Africa. Almost every year it had a different policy.

Even two in one year.

Yes, it even had two in one year. But now it thought that it had obtained a new policy in the form of its federation plan, but with one single announcement the Prime Minister has knocked the bottom out of that federation plan, because that plan is actually based on a political situation of a multi-racial state where integration may possibly still be advocated, but now in future we will have a multiplicity of states and not a multiplicity of races.

What will happen to the Natives who live here?

I will come to the Natives who live here. I feel that as the result of this statement by the Prime Minister we have now planted our feet firmly on the road to separate development and that we cannot now deviate from that course; it is a new position which has been created. Separate development now becomes an accomplished fact. It is now not only a policy; it is a policy which is being implemented; it is a policy which has become a fact. If the Opposition now wants to advocate that this accomplished fact should be changed, it would be just as useless as advocating that we should again become a monarchy where we are now a republic. Mr. Speaker, there is therefore this inevitable consequence to the United Party that it will now again have to frame a new policy. What that policy will be I do not know, but what I do know is that this announcement by the Prime Minister is of paramount importance, particularly to the United Party. In the past separate development was advocated simply as the alternative to the policy of integration, as the policy of one party compared with that of another party, but from now on you cannot simply advocate integration as opposed to separate development. If from now on one advocates integration, one will not be advocating that the policy of one party should be negatived; one will then be advocating that a state which has been established should be destroyed, and that state is the Xhosa state which will now come into being. If the United Party were now to advocate integration, it would mean that a state which has been established would have to be destroyed. That is the result of this announcement. You would no longer have to combat only a political policy of this party in the House; you will in future also have to deal with the inhabitants, the citizens, of that state, or in other words with that state itself whose destruction you seek. I would now like to know whether the United Party is prepared also to seek the destruction of the new Xhosa state which will be established. They will have to seek a new policy.

Mr. Speaker, of what use is it for the Opposition now to say that the Transkei Bantu in our cities is detribalized? If they have the vote in the Xhosa state, if they exercise their political rights there, then this whole argument of so-called detribalization no longer has any meaning at all; it is then senseless to say that the Natives who work here will be detribalized Natives, because they will be citizens of another state and will be able to exercise their rights there. It is senseless to talk about the Basuto of Basutoland who work in Cape Town whilst they vote for the Bantu authority, for the Basuto state in Basutoland, as being detribalized. My hon. friends know that, and they have never attempted to say so, nor will they now be able to say so in regard to the Xhosa. All the tumult created here this afternoon by the United Party in regard to the announcement made by the Prime Minister is only due to the fact that they realize that they can no longer talk about detribalized Natives who are now said to be in the White areas. They know that the system now amounts to this, that they are citizens of another country who are here temporarily to earn their living, and nothing more. The Bantu who work here will exercise their civic rights in that state and not here, and that being the case it can no longer be said that they are detribalized, just as little as it can be said that the Basuto from Basutoland who works h ere is a detribalized Native, because he exercises his civic rights in Basutoland. The United Party has never wanted to accept the statement we always made in this House, viz. that there is no such person as a detribalized Native. We have consistently said so, but they did not want to accept it. I feel that this announcement by the Prime Minister will have this effect: They never wanted to accept this fact, but they will now realize it. They will now actually experience that which they refused to accept.

Let me also say immediately that I am not concerned about the number of Bantu who are in the White area. The Xhosas of Xhosaland or the Bantu of the Bantu areas are certainly needed by us, just as they need us. Our economy is certainly still very dependent on Bantu labour; we need them, but let us never forget that the Bantu also need us. Not only do we need him; he also needs us. Without the income he derives from our economy, he cannot exist, and simply to say that all the Bantu must return to the Bantu areas and die there of poverty is inhumane. It is not necessary to force him back into his area to die there of poverty. Our economy needs him, and his economy needs us. It is a reciprocal process. There is only one thing we should guard against, and that will not be necessary any longer, because we will now have separate states. When in the past we belonged to the same state, it meant that the Bantu came from one part of the state to work in another part of that state; that this citizen of the same state went to another part of the country to work there. But now there are two separate states and the Bantu will now leave his own state to go to another state in order to work there, and he will then return to his own state. This labour pattern is not only two or three or four decades old in Europe; it has been known there for hundreds of years. Does the United Party not know about the Italians who have been going to work in the factories of other countries for years and years already and who then return to Italy without abandoning their Italian citizenship? Surely they must know that. This does not happen in only one small country; it is a well-known pattern in the European economy. It is something which is happening every day in Europe, and a person does not abandon his citizenship because he earns a living elsewhere. The fact that the Bantu will earn his living in the White area will not mean that he must now become a citizen of White South Africa.

He will remain a citizen of his own state. I am not concerned at all about the large numbers of non-Whites in South Africa. To me it means one thing only, namely that it shows how sound and strong and viable the White economy of South Africa is to be able to employ so much labour that to a large extent we provide not only for our own Bantu, but also for almost 1,000,000 Bantu from outside South Africa. Hon. members opposite now want to contend that this 1,000,000 Bantu from outside South Africa—there are approximately 200,000 who come from Mozambique, and together with the Bantu from Southern Rhodesia and Bechuanaland and Basutoland there are approximately 1,000,000 foreign Bantu in South Africa. Do they now want to contend that all those Bantu have been integrated here in South Africa? If they say that, they are talking nonsense; then they do not know the true facts. By means of our Bantu identity book system, every single one of those Bantu has been identified as a foreign Bantu, and consequently he can be repatriated to his own state on that identity book. Is the fact that there are a 1,000,000 foreign Bantu in South Africa any reason for asserting that they are now integrated in our economy, and that they now form part of the South African state? It is ridiculous to argue like that. They will all go back to their countries. They will take with them the income they earned here. What they have exported to South Africa is merely their labour. What is true of those foreign Bantu is just as true of our own Bantu in our own Bantu areas. They export their labour to South Africa and they import the income they derive from their labour here. It is ridiculous to use this state of affairs as affording proof that the whole plan announced by the Prime Minister is a failure.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to mention our mining industry. I would like to know from hon. members opposite whether they regard the fact that 400,000 foreign Bantu are engaged in our mining industry as a good reason why those foreign states cannot exist independently? Do they, because 400,000 foreign Bantu work in South Africa, contend that Mozambique and the Federation have now become integrated and form part of South Africa? It is nonsense to argue like that. I consider it a childish argument for the Leader of the Opposition to say that apartheid has failed and then to quote figures to prove it. Let me just say this in parenthesis, that the figure he quoted of the number of Bantu who are in the White area takes no account of all these foreign Bantu who have already been identified as foreign Bantu. During the last ten years their numbers have increased in our area from 500,000 to 1,000,000. Because there has been an increase of about 500,000 foreign Bantu in South Africa during the last ten years, does he now seek to imply that integration has taken place in South Africa? What applies to the foreign Bantu also applies to the increase in the number of Bantu in our own areas. They came here because our economy needed them, and also because they needed us to make a living.

Mr. Speaker, the United Party placed on the statute book the Native Urban Areas Act, which applies influx control. I noticed that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) boasted in an article in the Sunday Times that this was really their Act and their creation. In reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) he said this—

He says here—

Then he says that “influx control was introduced by the United Party”.

Quite true.

I just want to mention in passing that this is something which the Opposition criticized tremendously last year. They made a big furore in connection with the abolition of the pass laws. We have abolished the pass laws and substituted the identity book system, but the point I wish to stress is that the United Party also wants to abolish the identity book. Now anybody who seeks to abolish the identity book and then still talks about influx control does not know what he is talking about, with all respect. Because you cannot have influx control without the identity book, and you cannot have the identity book without the Population Registration Act, and the Population Registration Act has always been the Act they sneeringly called a “Studbook Act”. But without those Acts one cannot have influx control, and how the hon. member for Yeoville can boast that they want to apply influx control, without also accepting the Population Registration Act and the identity book, I simply cannot understand. It seems to me that the hon. member has never yet visited one of the Bantu labour bureaux in South Africa in order to see what goes on there. I think it would be quite an education to the hon. member for Yeoville if he would go and see how the system is applied there.

The main point to which I want to come is that the identity book system identifies every Bantu in South Africa, and because it identifies every Bantu one knows whether he is a Xhosa or a Swazi or a Zulu or a Tswana or a Basutho, and because they are so identified it is also known to what tribe they belong. As the result of the identity book system, we will therefore know precisely how many Xhosas from the Transkei are in the White areas. If the hon. member for Yeoville does not want to believe me, he should just go and see how the identity system works in practice. Everybody is identified, and everyone will be able to go and vote for his area, and because he will be able to go and vote there I cannot see why he should be treated on a different basis from the foreign Bantu in South Africa. He has already been identified and is a citizen of another state.

There is one respect in which the Leader of the Opposition may perhaps have grounds for the figures he quoted, and that is in regard to the Bantu born in the urban areas. The Bantu born in the cities has, in terms of the Group Areas Act passed by the United Party, obtained a sort of civic right or domicile in the urban areas, and others have obtained a sort of acquired right after having lived in such an area for 10 or 15 years. Now I want to mention these shocking figures. Do hon. members know that it is estimated that of the Bantu born in those cities and those who have worked there for 10 years or longer—we cannot remove them from those areas by means of influx control in terms of the legislation passed by the United Party—approximately 100,000 of them are unemployed in the cities? I believe that the only yardstick to be applied in implementing the policy announced by the Prime Minister is that the qualification should be the labour factor only, that the right of a Bantu to be in a White area should depend on his labour only. If it is this, viz. the increase in the number of births, which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had in mind, he must first realize that we should repeal their Act, the Act passed by the United Party. Otherwise he cannot plead for greater limitation as an alternative.

We on this side have repeatedly said that the economy of South Africa need not be influenced adversely by the fact that we get labour from another state, nor by the fact that another state is established in South Africa. I think it was the hon. member for South Coast who mentioned to-day that income tax would have to be collected by the Republic. He asked who would now collect taxation for those states? He said that in terms of the announcement made by the Prime Minister, that revenue could be collected by the White Republic and not by those Bantu states themselves. But what is wrong with revenue being collected by one state for another? Does the hon. member not know that this is a system which has applied in South Africa ever since 1910 in respect of the Protectorates? The Protectorates, although they are separate states, are associated with South Africa in a customs union and all their customs and excise is collected by the Union of South Africa and is paid over to them. Why cannot that be done in respect of Pondoland also? Why cannot taxation be collected by the Republic and paid over to such an area? Not only that, but the whole modern tendency to-day is to break down economic walls. That is the reason for the establishment of the Common Market in Europe. Although those countries exist as separate states, they want to create a unified economy and break down the tariff walls between the states, the economic walls. They want to retain separate citizenship and separate political systems, and they have their own Parliaments, but the economic walls are being broken down and they are trying to form a single economy. And why should we not have a single economy in South Africa, although we have different states? I do not know why that should present such an insurmountable difficulty to the Leader of the Opposition. That is the modern tendency to-day.

Before resuming my seat, I still want to say something about the federation plan. As I have already said, in my opinion, this federation plan is already an anachronism since yesterday’s announcement, but I would still like to point out a few things in regard to this federation plan of the United Party. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), who has now of course become the spokesman for the United Party, and I do not doubt for a moment that he writes out the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition for him, has now been unfortunate enough to have to write articles in the newspapers because he could not hold meetings, and then he started making announcements on behalf of the United Party in the Press. He has now set out the programme of action of the U.P. in regard to the federation plan. This is what he wrote—

Then he mentions the stages—

I have already said that I do not know what these wrongs can be, because he claimed influx control for himself. Therefore he will not abolish the pass laws, or let me say the identity system. Nor will he repeal the Group Areas Act, because he says that is not a wrong either, and it is not inhumane. Which other Acts he wants to repeal I do not know, nor did he go to the trouble of telling us. In this article he says that he wants to inform the hon. member for Houghton, but he did everything except that. He mentions none of the wrongs he wants to remedy. However, that is not the point I wish to make. The second stage he mentions here is this—

That is important. The second stage of their federation plan is that all races in South Africa must first have a voice in this Parliament—not in another Parliament, but in this Parliament. Then comes the third stage—

In other words, the franchise must first be given to all racial groups in this Parliament, and then this Parliament must in the third stage provide a system of federation. If this were to happen, if all the races are first to have a say here, do you then think for a single moment that the Bantu and the other non-White groups, when they have obtained all the say they would like to have in this Parliament, will then proceed to establish a federation to please the hon. member for Yeoville? Do you think it is in any way realistic to argue like that? Of course they will not do so. Federation has already been rejected by them in the other states of Africa. The Bantu in the other states did not want any federation, and the Federation of the Rhodesias, for example, is a failure. Does the hon. member now think that when once all these races have been given representation in this Parliament and have a say here, they will then suddenly enter into a racial federation just to please the United Party?

But there is also another aspect in regard to what he says here: “The third will be a gradual switch-away from our unitary system to a federal system with a true devolution of power to each race.” The devolution of power will now be to each race. On what basis? I think he made what I would almost call a nonsensical suggestion, that it should be according to the income of each group. It is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, that according to the income or the contribution of every group to the national income (it is still not quite clear whether it is the contribution to the national income or the income of each group, but if it is the income it will be according to the income tax assessment for each group), and on that basis they must now obtain representation in Parliament. If he takes that as the basis, will he give the gold mines the largest say because they contribute most by way of taxation? And if it is the gold mines, in what group will he classify them? Will he class them with the Bantu or with the Whites, as taxpayers? Does he think that the non-White taxpayers will be satisfied with such deceit, because it is nothing else but deceit if he wants to give them rights based on the taxation they pay? We know the non-Whites are the poorest section of the population. Do you think they will allow themselves to be deceived by the United Party if their voice in Parliament is to be limited in this way? It has never worked anywhere in the world and it will not work here. This federation plan which is supposed to give each racial group a say is ridiculous, and in this connection I want to mention this interesting matter—

I can merely say that only a layman in the legal sphere can argue like that, because the Law of Persons which deals with status is interwoven throughout our whole legal system. It applies in every court case heard in the country. One simply cannot separate it. It is a section of what we call the International Law of Persons. I just want to say that the system which the hon. member now wants to apply, the International Law of Persons, which is now based on a few decisions, will fill volumes and volumes in South Africa in order to ascertain where this matter now rests, whether it rests with the Whites or with the Coloureds or the Indians or the Bantu or the Xhosa or the Swazi. It is simply an unintelligible statement which has not been thoroughly considered at all. Of course we know the hon. member for Yeoville. He is always being so carried away by his own eloquence that he no longer knows what he is saying or writing. But I come to another thing he says—

Do you know what that will mean? It will mean that we will now have a Supreme Court for the Indians here in Cape Town, we will have a Supreme Court for the Coloureds in Cape Town, a Supreme Court for the Xhosas, a Supreme Court for the Swazis and the other Bantu groups. We will surely have more than 10 or 12 Supreme Courts to deal with the various matters. This is a half-baked scheme without any substance. I say that this matter has already become an anachronism after the statement made yesterday, but I want to say that this whole federation plan is nothing else but a flop made by the hon. member for Yeoville, and one almost feels like saying that after the deplorable accident in which the hon. member was involved, one is dealing here with a bird of ill omen which was born out of the accident in which the hon. member was involved on his way through the Free State.

I listened with great interest to parts of the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I do not want to argue with him, I only want to tell him that I particularly agree with a part of his speech. Of course I did not agree with him when he drew a comparison between migratory labour in certain countries in Europe and the position in the Republic of South Africa as to its migratory labour from the native areas. Neither the hon. member for Heilbron nor any other hon. member on his side would be able to mention one example, in Europe or elsewhere in the world, of a state which allows the majority of its labour power to become citizens of a foreign country in terms of a law of that state. But that is the policy which was expounded by the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa. Likewise I cannot agree with him that as a result of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech, we now have our feet firmly on the road to separate development. The hon. the Prime Minister’s speech was in many ways a renouncement of and a rejection of the policy of separate development, stressing “development”. This Government is trying to escape its responsibility for developing the non-White areas in the Republic of South Africa. I immediately want to say that I disagree with the Deputy Minister who took us as far back as statements politicians made in 1913, when e.g. the Communist Revolution had not yet taken place and circumstances were quite different from those of the present time. I think that we are interested in conditions in South Africa today and what it will be to-morrow and the day after if we are to continue to pursue the policy the Prime Minister announced. But I think, Mr. Speaker, when we are fresher we shall be able to give it better attention, and therefore I move—

I second.